Hetram Patel Vs Suddhudas

¶1

Digitally signed by AJINKYA PANSARE Date: 2025.10.06 16:55:16 +0530

¶2

1

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 115 of 2021

¶6

Hetram Patel S/o Shri Teejram Patel Aged About 55 Years R/o Devarmal, Chowki Urga, P.S. Kotwali, District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1. Suddhudas S/o Bahetara Das Mahant Aged About 40 Years R/o Secl Chhal, P.S. Chhal, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle)., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2. Secl General Manager Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, (Owner Of Vehicle), District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Stadium Road, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

¶12

For Appellant	: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate
For Respondent No. 2	: Ms. Shrejal Gupta, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Vaibhav Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R.N Pusty, Advocate

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶14

Judgment On Board

¶15

06-10-2025

¶16

1) The appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims

¶17

2

¶18

Tribunal, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 16/2012 dated 28/04/2015 whereby learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 35,000/- with interest @8% on account of injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶19

2) Facts of the present case as per claim application are that on 10/12/2011 at about 5:30 p.m., the claimant was driving his motorcycle and near Sendripali Bazar, respondent No. 1 while driving the offending truck bearing CG-13-JC-0576 in negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of claimant. Resultantly, he sustained grievous injuries and remained hospitalized for a period of one week.

¶20

3) Claimant moved an application under Section 166 of The Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,90,000/-. Driver and owner of offending vehicle and Insurance Company filed reply and denied the averments made in claim application. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter learned Tribunal passed the award.

¶21

4) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that disability certificate [Ex.P/10] was issued by the Medical Board, Korba in favor of appellant/ claimant wherein disability to the extent of 13% has been mentioned on account of injuries sustained over Clavicle Bone by the appellant. He further submits that learned Tribunal has not assessed the extent of disability sustained by the claimant in the accident. He contends that claimant was working as a Salesman and his work was significantly affected by the accident

¶22

3

¶23

but the learned Tribunal has not passed award on other conventional heads. He prays to enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

¶24

5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company/ respondent No. 3 submits that claimant failed to produce X-Ray report before the learned Tribunal and also failed to examine any member of Medical Board, Korba which issued the disability certificate. He further submits that in absence of evidence of treating medical practitioner and/or member of Medical Board, learned Tribunal rightly assessed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 35,000/-. In this regard, he has placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju Versus Yudhvir Singh and Another¹ .

¶25

6) Learned counsel appearing for the owner of offending vehicle/ respondent No. 2 supports the contention made by Mr. Shrivastava.

¶26

7) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶27

8) In the present case, though it is pleaded by the claimant that he sustained grievous injuries which led to disability and disability certificate was issued by Medical Board, Korba but claimant failed to examine either the treating medical practitioner or any member of Medical Board, Korba to prove the contents of disability certificate (Ex. P/10). Even, X-Ray report was not produced before

¶28

1 . (2008) 7 SCC 305

¶29

4

¶30

the Tribunal.

¶31

9) Learned Tribunal has assessed the monthly income of claimant to be Rs. 5,000/- per-month and awarded Rs. 5,000/- towards medical expenses ; Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of income for period of three months; Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards damage caused to the vehicle. Thus, in total, learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 35,000/- as compensation on account of injuries sustained by the claimant. The Tribunal correctly rejected the disability certificate (Ex. P/10) since neither the treating medical practitioner nor a member of the Medical Board was examined.

¶32

10) Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the award impugned. Consequently, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶33

Sd/-

¶34

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶35

A j i n k y a

Hetram Patel v. Suddhudas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hetram Patel v. Suddhudas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lobhan Vs Peru

Yadram Ghritlahare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Satya Darshan Yogashram And Anr. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors.

Devichandra Pardhi Vs Sunil Kumar Dewangan

Smt. Neera Singh Vs Aman Kumar

Gagra Ram Kashyap Vs Naindhar Patel