Sanjay Kumar Sahu Vs Narmada Prasad

¶1

1 / 4

¶2

2025:CGHC:15865

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MA C No. 146 of 202 0

¶6

Sanjay Kumar Sahu S/o Shiv Prasad Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Bade Pouni Bharewa (Puran), Tahsil - Mungeli, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh., District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Appellant/ Claimant

¶8

versus

¶9

Narmada Prasad S/o Heera Lal Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Doda, Thana Fasterpur, Tahsil and District Mungeli Chhattisgarh...( Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 28 /D / 0681)

¶10

Heera Lal Sahu S/o Govardhan Sahu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Doda, Thana Fasterpur, Tahsil and District Mungeli Chhattisgarh . ( Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 28 /D / 0681

¶11

--- Respondents

¶12

____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate

¶13

04/04/2025

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahuble Shri Justice Parth Prateem SahuParth Prateem Sahu

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahuble Shri Justice Parth Prateem SahuParth Prateem Sahu PAWAN KUMAR Order On Board JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶16

Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 19.08.2019 passed by Learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 69/2018, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 5,000/as compensation.

¶17

Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 10.08.2018, the appellant was going towards his farm at 05.30 pm on a bicycle. When he

¶18

2 / 4

¶19

reached near canal of village Bade Pauni, the non-applicant No. 1/ driver of tractor No. CG28-D-0681, driving the tractor on opposite direction rashly and negligently, hit the bicycle of appellant and caused an accident, as a result of which the appellant received injuries on the left thigh, left hand and face. He was admitted at Mungeli Government Hospital. Thereafter, he was referred to a higher center, from where he was taken to Ankur Trauma Center, Bilaspur for treatment, where it was found that he had a fracture in his leg. A crime bearing number 94/2018 for alleged offence under sections 279, 337 of IPC and Section 146, 196 of the Act of 1988 was registered against the nonapplicants at police station Fastpur.

¶20

Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 7,25,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident he was about 25 years of age, was an able bodied person used to do the work of motor pump mechanic and motor winding, from which he was earning ₹ 15,000/- per month and maintaining himself and his family. It is pleaded that due to injuries suffered to him in the accident, he is not able to do the work as he was doing earlier to earn his livelihood.

¶21

Non-applicant No. 1 & 2/ Respondent No. 1 & 2-Driver and owner of the tractor submitted their reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further stated that the FIR has been lodged after six days from the date of accident against the driver of the tractor. No report has been filed against non-applicant No. 1. The amount of claim of ₹ 7,25,000/-, is highly exaggerated for which no proper documents have been submitted, due to which the claim application submitted by the applicant be dismissed.

¶22

Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant suffered grievous injuries due to rash and negligent driving of tractor by non-applicant 1 and

¶23

3 / 4

¶24

calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 5,000/- as total compensation with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application.

¶25

Learned counsel for appellant would submit that the appellant remained admitted for a week and kept getting treatment and went to Bilaspur for checkup every 15 days. On 17.09.2018, when he went to Bilaspur for a check up, it was found that he had an infection in his leg. Then again he got admitted from 17.09.2018 to 22.09.2018 and got treatment. He submits that Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation. He contended that the total amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is ₹ 5,000/- out of which ₹ 2,707/- is awarded towards medical expenses and the balance amount is awarded towards pain and sufferings. Learned Claims Tribunal failed to consider that the appellant suffered injury over his hip bone due to which he is unable to do his work. Therefore, looking to the nature of work and injury suffered by him, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced.

¶26

Learned counsel for Respondents vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal considering the entirety of the facts and circumstance of the case has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference of this Court.

¶27

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record.

¶28

Learned counsel for appellant has made submission before this Court that learned Claims Tribunal awarded meagre amount of compensation looking to the nature of injuries suffered by appellant over his leg due to which he is unable to do his work as he was doing earlier. As per pleadings and evidence appellant was doing the work of motor pump mechanic for which he has to do

¶29

4 / 4

¶30

work while standing, bending on his waist etc. and in the aforementioned facts appellant due to said injury might not have worked for couple of weeks, he might have suffered pain and sufferings for doing the day to day activities. Therefore, in the above facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding compensation towards pains and suffering and not awarded any amount towards loss of earnings during treatment of injuries suffered by him due to motor vehicle accident.

¶31

In the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to award further amount of 10,000/- out of which ₹ ₹ 5,000/- towards loss of income during the treatment period and ₹ 5,000/- towards pain and sufferings, in addition to the amount already awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶32

Now the appellant-claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 15,000/- instead of ₹ 5,000/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. Any amount paid to the appellant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶33

In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶34

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶35

pwn

Sanjay Kumar Sahu v. Narmada Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjay Kumar Sahu v. Narmada Prasad

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gopal Singh Koumarya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt Fulo Bai Nayak Vs Rathram Paikra

Resham Bai Nayak Vs Rathram Paikra

Smt. Naina Ambade Vs Devendra Kumar Ambade

Rahul @ Rishabh Vs Pradip

Mukesh Yadav Vs Birendra Verma