Jagannath Prasad Vs Rakhi Ram

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:32736

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 150 of 2018

¶7

1 - Jagannath Prasad S/o Rameshwar Prasad Sahu Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Sakrapali, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Rakhi Ram S/o Late Narsingh Sahu Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Pendrawan, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Alleged Vehicle Mahindra Bolero Bearing Registration No. C.G.12 E 1225), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Motilal Sahu S/o Jamelal Sahu Aged About 35 Years R/o Dhangur Nala Barpara Kohadiya, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Alleged Vehicle Mahindra Bolero Bearing Registration No. C.G.12 E 1225), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

2

¶13

3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office Gardan Chowk Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Alleged Vehicle Mahindra Bolero Bearing Registration No. C.G.12 E 1225), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

4 - Rameshwar Prasad S/o Bisheshar Prasad Sahu Aged About 74 Years R/o Village Sakrapali, Police Station Sarsiwa, Tahsil Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Motorcycle Deam Nev Bearing Registration C.G.04 Kx 1367), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

5 - Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited Banijaya Bhawan Devendra Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Motorcycle Deam New Bearing Registration C.G.04 Kx 1367), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

... Respondent(s)

¶17

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 1	: Mr. Anand Kesharwani, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 2 & 4	: None.
For Respondent(s)No. 3	: Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 5	: Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate on behalf
	of Mr. Amrito Das, Advocate.

¶18

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

Order on Board

14/07/2025

3

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant for enhancement against the award dated 13.12.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, District – Baloda Bazar (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 99/2016 whereby compensation of Rs. 18,12,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded.

¶23

Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellant/claimant, namely, Jagannath Prasad has filed a claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda BazarBhatapara (C.G.), seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 93,40,000/- for the injuries sustained in a road accident that occurred on 19/03/2016. As per the claim, on the said date, the appellant was traveling from Village Sakrapali to Sarsiwa on his motorcycle to purchase domestic items, and when he reached near Ajay Auto Parts, Sarsiwa, a Pick-Up vehicle bearing registration No. CG-12-E-1225, coming from the opposite direction and being driven rashly and negligently, hit his motorcycle, causing him to fall. The wheel of the offending vehicle ran over his right leg, resulting in a fracture and permanent disability assessed at 40%, with surgical insertion of a rod. The matter was reported at Police Station Sarsiwa and

¶24

4

¶25

Crime No. 82/2016 was registered under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of IPC. The respondents No. 1 to 5 have filed their reply denying the allegations and stated that the vehicle was insured with respondents No. 3 and 5, who are liable. However, respondent No. 3 (New India Insurance Company Limited) denied liability, contending that the driver and owner had violated policy conditions. After framing issues and recording evidence, the learned Tribunal passed an award dated 13/12/2017 and granting compensation to the tune of Rs. 18,12,000/-. Dissatisfied with the awarded amount, the appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation.

¶26

In the award passed by the Tribunal, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- towards treatment, Rs. 5,76,000/- towards future income, Rs. 30,000/- towards mental agony and pain and suffering, Rs. 25,000/- towards transporting, Rs. 36,000/- towards during medical treatment, Rs. 25,000/- towards special diet & Rs. 20,000/- towards future treatment. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 18,12,000/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant/claimant.

¶27

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 18,12,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the awarded

¶28

5

¶29

compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, the compensation amount may be enhanced suitably. Hence, this appeal may be allowed and awarded amount needs to be enhanced suitably.

¶30

None for respondents No. 2 & 4 i.e. owner and driver of the offending vehicle.

¶31

On the other hand, remaining learned counsel for the respondents opposes the same.

¶32

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering has been awarded looking to the injury sustained by the claimant and rest of the awarded amount is reasonable and not required to be interfered with.

¶34

Looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant the amount awarded in respect of pain and suffering is required to be enhanced.

¶35

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 20,000/- more towards pain and suffering in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The

¶36

6

¶37

enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶38

Sd/-

¶39

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge

¶40

Raghu Jat

Jagannath Prasad v. Rakhi Ram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannath Prasad v. Rakhi Ram

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

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. D. Vijya

Laxminarayan Bhave Vs Mohan

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Tilkunwar Bai

Shriram General Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Jamsida Biwi

Jaimangal Vs Devkunwar

Surendra Kumar Thakur Vs Smt. Bahura Bai