Baldev Nishad Vs Mahipal Singh Kanwar

2 - Messors J. P. Associates, Plot No. 286 I C C Complex, Near S B I Bank, T. P. Nagar, Korba Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Magma H. D. I. General Insurance Company Limited, Magma House 24 Park Street, Kolkata 700016 Through Branch Manager Magma H. D. I. General Insurance Company Limited, Present Address

¶13

2

¶14

Behind H D F C Bank, Power House Road, Korba Tehsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh , District : Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Lalit Jangde, Advocate.
For Respondent(s)No. 1	: None.
For Respondent No. 2	: Mr. Virendra Vaishnav, Advocate on
	behalf of Mr. ParagKotecha, Advocate.
For Respondent No.	Mr. Arvind Panda, Advocate on behalf
	of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate.

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

22/07/2025

¶20

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant for enhancement against the award dated 22.09.2017 passed by the learned Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kathora, District – Korba (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 107/2014 whereby compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded.

¶21

Brief facts of the case, is that, an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act was filed by the appellant seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,60,000/- against the respondents. On 21.11.2013, at about 12:00 noon at Labour

¶22

3

¶23

Colony, Darri, Korba, respondent No.1, while negligently reversing a Hywa Truck (registration No. CG12 S 0641), hit the appellant, causing serious injury to his left leg and initially treated at NTPC Hospital, Korba, the appellant was referred to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur, where his left leg had to be amputated below the knee, resulting in permanent disability. A case was registered at Darri Police Station as Crime No. 65/2014 under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC. At the time of the accident, the appellant was 33 years old, employed as a welder at R.K. Engineering earning Rs. 12,000/- per month, and he claimed a total compensation of Rs. 12,60,000/- under various heads. Respondents No.1 and 2 submitted that the vehicle was insured between 02.09.2013 and 01.09.2014 and that the driver held a valid license, hence, they denied liability stating that the insurance company (respondent No. 3) was responsible. However, respondent No. 3 contended that although the vehicle was insured during the relevant period, the driver did not possess a valid license for driving a Hywa Truck, thereby breaching the terms of the insurance policy. After hearing both parties and examining the evidence, the Learned Claims Tribunal concluded that the appellant had sustained permanent injuries and held respondent No. 3 liable to pay compensation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,00,000/- for an artificial leg, Rs. 30,000/- for

¶24

4

¶25

medical expenses, Rs. 50,000/- for physical and mental pain, and Rs. 20,000/- for loss of income totaling Rs. 2,00,000 with 7% annual interest from the date of application until payment. However, the appellant considers the awarded amount to be meager and inadequate in light of the facts and evidence presented.

¶26

In the award passed by the Tribunal, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards artificial legs, Rs. 30,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 50,000/- towards physical and mental pain, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of income. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 2,00,00/- 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. 2,00,000/- 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 compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. He further submits that the appellant is aged about 33 years old and is earning Rs. 12,000/- per month and after the accident occurred the appellant has sustained 70% disability and is now able to work as efficiently as before and also loss of income. Therefore, the compensation amount may be enhanced suitably. Hence, this appeal may be allowed and awarded amount needs to be

¶28

5

¶29

enhanced suitably.

¶30

None for respondent No. 1.

¶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 70% disability cannot be taken into consideration, however, it is not in dispute that left leg of the appellant was amputated from the below knee as such the disability would be considered to be 40%. In other heads, meager amount has been awarded as such an additional amount of Rs. 50,000/- towards transportation, Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 50,000/- loss of income is hereby enhanced and rest of the awarded amount is reasonable and not required to be interfered with.

¶34

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 1,50,000/- more in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The 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

¶35

6

¶36

extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶39

Judge

¶40

Raghu Jat

Baldev Nishad v. Mahipal Singh Kanwar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baldev Nishad v. Mahipal Singh Kanwar

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

Krishna Prasad Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Toran Lal Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rambharos Dhurve Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Santosh Kumar Prajapati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohd. Azeem Qureshi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gyandeo Bhoy Vs State of Chhattisgarh