Purssottam Singh Dhurvey Vs Mahendra Kumar

¶1

1 / 6

¶2

2025:CGHC:30710

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 2156 of 2019

¶6

Purssottam Singh Dhurvey S/o Ramswaroop Dhurvey Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Khairjhiti Kala, Post Office Ghatraka, Police Station and Tahsil Thankhamariya, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Bajrang Chowk, Boriya Khurd, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

--- Appellant/ Claimant

¶8

versus

¶9

Mahendra Kumar S/o Shrughan Mahilang R/o Village Manpur, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ( Driver of Car No. C.G.- 10/Z/8859)

¶10

Gujrat Madhu / Nanku Madhu R/o Bhartiya Nagar Bilaspur, Infront of Taiyyab Masjid, Police Station Civil Lines Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ( Owner of Car No. C.G.- 10/Z/8859)

¶11

Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through In Charge Officer, Cholamandalam General Insurance Co. Ltd. Near Railway Bridge Pandari, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer of Car No. C.G.- 10/Z/8859)

¶12

--- Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate

¶14

For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : Mr. Amitesh Pandey, Advocate

¶15

For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Ramayan Yadav, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Anshuman Rabra, Advocate

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board

¶17

04/07/2025

¶18

Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation, challenging the award dated 13.12.2018 passed by Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶19

PAWAN KUMAR JHA Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA

¶20

2 / 6

¶21

(for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 13/17, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Act, 1988 in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 9,17,036/- as compensation in motor accidental injury case.

¶22

Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 09.05.2016 at about 10:00 am, at Temri Navagaon turn under Police Station Mungeli, non-applicant No. 1 while driving his vehicle car number CG 10 Z 8859 (henceforth “offending car”) in a rash and negligent manner hit the motor cycle of applicant bearing registration no. CG 25C 5370, as a result of which the applicant suffered grievous injuries. In the accident applicant's right thigh bone and left elbow bone got fractured. He was admitted to District Hospital, Mungeli, thereafter, took treatment at Shri Ram Care Hospital, Bilaspur and then to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur. A report of the said accident was lodged to Police Station, Mungeli, based on which crime was registered against nonapplicant No. 1 for alleged offences under Sections 279, 337, 338 of IPC.

¶23

Appellant-injured filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking compensation of ₹ 48,35,000/- pleading therein that on the date of accident appellant was of 28 years of age, was a physically fit person. At the time of the accident he was working as Sikshakarmi Gr.III and was earning ₹ 11,500/- per month. Due to accident, he suffered permanent disability and is unable to do the work which he was doing prior to accident.

¶24

Respondent No. 1 & 2 / Non-applicant No. 1 & 2 -driver and owner of the offending car submitted their reply to the application before the Claims Tribunal, except the undisputed facts pleaded in the application they shown their unawareness of the material fact and have stated that the offending car was insured by the insurance company on the date of accident.

¶25

3 / 6

¶26

Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company filed its reply to the claim application, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, and it was further pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of driver of motorcycle ie., applicant. He was driving the motorcycle without wearing helmet and without effective driving license. Nonapplicant No. 1 was also driving the offending car in breach of policy conditions without having valid and effective driving license and pleaded that the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation, if awarded.

¶27

Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant- Purshottam Singh Dhurve suffered grievous injuries causing permanent disability in the accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of offending car driven by nonapplicant No. 1. Contributory negligence on the part of appellant injured was not found to be proved, as also breach of conditions of insurance policy was not found to be proved. Tribunal calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 9,17,036/- as total compensation with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened first liability upon non-applicant No. 3 to satisfy the award and joint and several liability upon non-applicants.

¶28

Learned counsel for appellant-claimant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager sum of compensation overlooking the nature of injury, loss of income during period of treatment. Appellant took treatment as in-patient in different hospitals. He also submits that the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of future earnings even though taking note of documentary evidence of disability certificate, Ext. P-134, wherein the doctor who issued the certificate has mentioned permanent disability of 40% and prays for suitable enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶29

4 / 6

¶30

Learned counsel for the respective respondents oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the claimant/appellant was working as Sikshakarmi Gr.III on the date of accident and it is not a case of claimant/ appellant that after suffering motor accidental injuries, he is unable to perform his duty effectively. Even after the accident appellant was discharging his duties and therefore there is no loss of future earnings.

¶31

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

¶32

Perusal of record of claim case would show that the claimant has filed discharged summary of Shri Ram Care Hospital as Ext. P-5, in which the nature of injury as mentioned therein is extracted below for ready reference;

¶33

“… Patient was gradually weaned off mechanical ventilatory support and successively extubated. Post extubation he maintained well on room air, is toleraing ryles tube feeding well. He was planned for surgery on left elbow but the attendents want the patient to be discharged due to financial constraints and want the patient to be referred to GOVT MEDICAL COLLEGE AND HOSPITAL, RAIPUR for further treatment and evaluation. Patient was treated with IV Antibiotics/Analgesics/PPI/antipyretics/i/vfluids/poo led plasma and oxygen/nebulisation/ventilatory support/antiepileptics and other supportive medication, Condition stable on discharge. Tolerating soft diet well. Patient has developed Right thigh and ischiorectal region celluitis for which drainage of abscess was done under LA on 28th May 2016. Hospital stays uneventful. Patient is conscious, oriented, Haemo dynamically with maintaining saturation at room Air, BP of 110/70 mm hg, Pulse rate of 84/Minutes. Patient is being discharged on request of patients relatives. Risk of transportation explained. Right Thomas splint in situ.”

¶34

The discharged summary mentioned the date of admission of claimant in

¶35

hospital as 10.05.2016 and date of discharge is 28.05.2016. In the discharge summary it is mentioned that the claimant went for treatment in Dr. Bhimrao

¶36

5 / 6

¶37

Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur. The discharge ticket of the said hospital is filed as Ext. P-3 which mentions nature of injury with which the patient was admitted. Though the claimant has submitted disability certificate as Ext. P-134, however, to prove the disability certificate, the doctor who issued the certificate has not been examined. Claims Tribunal considering the evidence available on record has awarded ₹ 1,64,463/- towards loss of income during period of treatment, ₹ 5,61,573/- towards medical expenses, ₹ 75,000/- towards pain and sufferings, ₹ 30,000/- towards conveyance expenses, ₹ 20,000/- towards special diet and ₹ 66,000 towards attendant. During course of argument learned counsel for appellant-claimant could not point out that the Tribunal fell into error in not considering any of the proved document towards medical expenses or escaped consideration of any such bill/ document while assessing compensation under the head of medical expenses. The award under the head of loss of earning during period of treatment cannot be said to be on lower side as there is no evidence brought on record as to for how many months the claimant could not able to perform his work and he was not paid salary by the employer. In absence of any such evidence, award of compensation under the head of loss of income during period of treatment also cannot be interfered with. Award of compensation under other conventional heads, also appears to be just and proper and it also does not call for any interference.

¶38

Perusal of discharge summary forming part of Ext. P-3 and P-5 would show that the claimant suffered multiple fracture injury and for which he took medical treatment in different hospitals for about 110 days. Claims Tribunal has awarded loss of income during period of treatment for 13 months which in the opinion of this Court is appropriately awarded in absence of any evidence that the claimant could not able to perform his duty for more period than what is assessed by the Claims Tribunal. Tribunal though considered

¶39

6 / 6

¶40

Ext. P-134 and concluded that the appellant suffered permanent disablement of 40%, however, has not awarded any amount of compensation towards loss of amenities in life when once the Tribunal has accepted the permanent disability certificate. Appellant on the date of accident was over 28 years of age only, he has to live his rest of the life with the said disability he suffered, he could not be able to enjoy his life as an ordinary person and therefore in the aforementioned facts of the case, I find it appropriate to award ₹ 40,000/towards loss of amenities in life. It is ordered accordingly.

¶41

For the foregoing discussion, appeal is allowed in part . The appellantclaimant will further be entitled for additional amount of ₹ 40,000/- towards loss of amenities in life in addition to what is awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The awarded amount of compensation by the Claims Tribunal to the appellant-claimant is ₹ 9,17,036/-. Now the total amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant-claimant comes to ₹ 9,57,036/- (₹ 9,17,036 + ₹ 40,000). The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellant-claimant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶42

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

¶43

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶44

pwn

Purssottam Singh Dhurvey v. Mahendra Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Purssottam Singh Dhurvey v. Mahendra Kumar

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

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Shivam Sahu

Sunder Singh (Died and Deleted) Through LRs. Vs Ibraham

Gufran Khan @ Pappu Khan Vs Devendra Dorle

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Uttara Kashyap

Ku. Manisha Kishan Vs Kamal Jangde

Smt. Ragani Vs Santosh