Smt. Rajo Devi Vs Pawan Kumar

¶1

-1-

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:12790

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 158 of 2022

¶7

Smt. Rajo Devi W/o Hariram Verma Aged About 56 Years Occupation- Labour, R/o Village Khamtarai, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil and District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

1 - Pawan Kumar, S/o Tirath Banjare Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Sendari, Police Station Koni, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.-04Da/3583).

¶11

2 - Ravishankar S/o Shivkumar Kaushik Aged About 32 Years R/o Behind Mausaji Honda Showroom, Daihanpara, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.-04-Da/3583).

¶12

3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Divisional Office First Floor Rama Trade Centre, Old Bus Stand, Infront Of Rajeev Plaza, Tahsil And District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.-04-Da/3583).

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶15

For Appellant : Ms. Dipti Tiwari, Advocate, holding the brief of Ms. Pragya Pandey, Advocate

¶16

For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

Order on Board

-2-

18.03.2025

The appellant is aggrieved by the award/order dated 16.01.2020 passed in Claim Case No. 259/2018 by the Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chhattisgarh (Annexure A/1).

¶22

The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 13.12.2017, at about 1:30 PM, the appellant was crossing the road near RK Petrol Pump, Main Road, when respondent No. 1, who was driving a tractor bearing registration No. C.G.-04DA/3583, rashly and negligently, dashed the appellant. As a result, the appellant sustained grievous injuries on her forehead, hands, and wrist. Her face was also disfigured. The appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of Rs. 5,03,000/- under various heads from the respondents. It was submitted that the appellant was a laborer and, due to the injuries sustained in the accident, she was unable to work effectively. She also suffered injuries on her forehead and head, causing continuous headaches.

¶23

After hearing both parties, the learned Claims Tribunal partly allowed the appellant’s claim vide impugned award dated 16.01.2020.

¶24

The learned counsel for the appellant would submit as under:-

¶25

A. The impugned award dated 16.01.2020, passed by the learned M.A.C.T., is perverse, erroneous, contrary to fact, law, and evidence on record, and therefore, liable to be enhanced.

¶26

B. The learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the appellant’s income as Rs. 7,800/- per month and concluded that the claimant was unable to work for just one month, whereas, in reality, she was a laborer earning Rs.

¶27

-3-

¶28

10,000/- per month.

¶29

C. Considering the severity of the injuries sustained by the appellant, the awarded compensation is too low. The appellant is unable to work properly due to injuries to her hands, wrist, and head, making the award liable to be enhanced.

¶30

D. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded an inadequate amount of compensation for travel expenses and attendant charges.

¶31

E. The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded separate compensation for nutritious food.

¶32

F. The learned Claims Tribunal has not granted any compensation for future treatment, despite the grievous injuries sustained by the appellant.

¶33

G. The learned Claims Tribunal has not properly considered the bills and expenses related to the appellant’s prolonged treatment, which were submitted before the tribunal. Furthermore, no evidence was produced in rebuttal.

¶34

H. The learned Claims Tribunal failed to correctly appreciate the evidence placed before it.

¶35

I. The Tribunal has awarded an insufficient amount for future treatment and loss of income.

¶36

On the other hand, Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for respondent No. 3, opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and supports the impugned award.

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

¶38

From a perusal of the records, it is evident that the appellant sustained facial

¶39

injuries and claimed Rs. 1,50,000/- for further treatment and Rs. 2,00,000/- for

¶40

-4-

¶41

facial disfigurement. However, the claimant failed to produce the relevant documents. Further, regarding loss of income, the claimant emphasized that she earned Rs. 10,000/- per month, but no supporting documents were submitted. Consequently, the learned Tribunal awarded Rs. 7,800/- for one month’s loss of income.

¶42

Taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Tribunal

¶43

awarded compensation under the following heads:-

¶44

S. No.	Heads	Compensation amount
01.	For medical expenses	Rs. 11,770.00
02.	For Loss of Income	Rs.7,800.00
03.	For physical and mental pain	Rs. 5,000.00
04.	For Transportation, Nutritious and help	Rs.6,000.00
	Total	Rs. 30,570-00

¶45

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, no case is made out for

¶46

interference by this Court with the judgment impugned. Accordingly, this appeal

¶47

fails and is hereby dismissed .

¶48

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶49

Nadim

Smt. Rajo Devi v. Pawan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Rajo Devi v. Pawan Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manager, Kisan Rice Mill Vs Shri Jagtu Ram Nishad And Ors.

Manager, Kisan Rice Mill Vs Shri Ramadhin Nishad @ Ramadhin Dhruv And Ors.

M/s Salasar Air Product Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jagannath Sen Vs Khooni Bai and Anr.

Bishambhar Vs National Highway Authority of India Ltd.

Smt Rekha Bai Vs Sunil Kumar Verma