Shirish Satnami Vs Chandrashekhar Pod

Sirish Satnami S/o Ghasiya Satnami Aged About 32 Years Presently Residing At Imlibhatha, Police Station And District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimant)

¶18

2

¶19

Chandrashekhar Pond S/o Karunakar Pond Aged About 34 Years R/o Kendupati Khariyar, Nuwapada Orissa. ---(NonApplicant No. 1)

¶20

Mahavir Agrawal Ward No.8, Khariyar Road, Nuwapada, Orissa. ---(Non-Applicant No.3)

¶21

--- Respondents

¶22

MAC No.238/2019

¶23

For Appellants	: Mr. A.L. Singraul, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	: Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
For Appellant	MAC No.87/2019 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate
For Respondent No.1	: Mr. A.L. Singraul, Advocate

¶24

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board

¶25

15/7/2025

¶26

As the above two appeals arise out of the same accident, they are heard together and being decided by this order.

¶27

MAC No.238/2019 is preferred by claimant seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Mahasamund (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 10.9.2018.

¶28

MAC No.87/2019 is preferred by insurance company seeking exoneration from the liability to satisfy the impugned award or in alternative to suitably reduce the quantum of compensation.

¶29

3

¶30

Facts of the case giving rise to these appeals are that on 11.9.2009 at about 11:00, the vehicle bearing registration mark CG04/ZC/0227 (for short ‘the offending vehicle’), driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1, dashed the claimant and caused accident. In the said accident, claimant sustained grievous injuries leading to amputation of his left leg. Claimant filed an application under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking total compensation of Rs.16,00,000/- on the ground that at the time of accident, injured claimant was 32 years of age, working as labourer and earning Rs.150/per day. However, due to amputation of his left leg, he became permanently disabled and sustained 100% loss of earning capacity.

¶31

Non-applicant No.1 and 2, driver and owner of offending vehcile, have been proceeded ex-parte and no written statement has been filed on their behalf.

¶32

Non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company filed its reply and took a stand that at the time of accident driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid and effective driving license, which amounts to violation of condition of insurance policy and, therefore, insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation.

¶33

The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and

¶34

4

¶35

evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties had arrived at a conclusion that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of nonapplicant No.1-driver; there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy. Accordingly, the Claims Tribunal partly allowed claim application of injured claimant and while assessing permanent disability at 40%, awarded compensation of Rs.5,06,440/-.

¶36

Learned counsel for appellant in MAC No.238/2019 would argue that the Claims Tribunal has assessed monthly income of injured at Rs.4,500/- only, which is on lower side. Further, the Claims Tribunal has not taken into consideration the loss towards future prospects while computing compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity. In the accident in question, appellant suffered grievous injury in his left leg which was later amputated, his disability was assessed at 60% in disability certificate (Ex.P-11), however, the Claims Tribunal without assigning any reason has assessed disability of appellant at 40%, which is erroneous. The amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal under other heads is also on lower side. Hence, he prays that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be enhanced suitably.

¶37

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for appellant

¶38

5

¶39

Insurance Company in MAC No.87/2019 would argue that since the injured claimant himself has claimed that he was earning Rs.150/- per day, the application filed on his behalf under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 was not maintainable as the income of claimant exceeds Rs.40,000/- per annum. This apart, she submits that the treating doctor has not been examined to prove the disability sustained by appellant due to accidental injuries and without the evidence of treating doctor, it is not possible to believe that, the claimant has sustained disability due to grievous injuries.

¶40

I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record of the claim case as well as impugned award.

¶41

As the question of maintainability of claim application has been raised by learned counsel for appellant Insurance Company, I propose to decide the same before entering into its merit.

¶42

The question as to whether the proceeding under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 can be maintained at the instance of the claimants where the income of the deceased or injured exceeded Rs.40,000/- per annum is no longer a res integra in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepal Girishbhai Soni & ors vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in 2004 (5) SCC 385 wherein it

¶43

6

¶44

was held that in terms of the provision under section 163A, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs. 40,000/- or less is covered thereunder, whereas sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections of society. Relevant paras of the said decision is reproduced herein below for ready reference:-

¶45

"41. The scheme envisaged under Section 163-A, in our opinion, leaves no manner of doubt that by reason thereof the rights and obligations of the parties are to be determined finally. The amount of compensation payable under the aforementioned provisions is not to be altered or varied in any other proceedings. It does not contain any provision providing for set off against a higher compensation unlike Section 140. In terms of the said provision, a distinct and specified class of citizens, namely, persons whose income per annum is Rs. 40,000/- or less is covered thereunder whereas Sections 140 and 166 cater to all sections of society.

¶46

We, therefore, are of the opinion that Kodala (supra) has correctly been decided. However, we do not agree with the findings in Kodala (supra) that if a person invokes provisions of Section 163-A, the annual income of Rs. 40,000/- per annual shall be

¶47

7

¶48

treated as a cap. In our opinion, the proceeding under Section 163-A being a social security provision, providing for a distinct scheme, only those whose annual income is upto Rs. 40,000/- can take the benefit thereof. All other claims are required to be determined in terms of Chapter XII of the Act.”

¶49

In case at hand, from perusal of the contents of claim application it is clear that it is an application under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 wherein it is pleaded that at the time of accident, injured was 32 years of age, doing the work of labour and earning Rs.150/- per day, which makes the annual income of injured claimant at Rs.54,000/- per annum. Even in the evidence recorded before the Claims Tribunal, the injured claimant has deposed that he was earning Rs.150-200/- per day, meaning thereby annual income of appellant was more than Rs.40,000/-. Since the appellant-claimant himself has claimed that his income was more than Rs.40,000/- per annum, therefore, he cannot claim compensation under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 in view of the above decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Consequently, this Court holds that application filed under Section 163A of the Act of 1988 by claimant-appellant in MAC No.238/2019 is not maintainable.

¶50

As non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company in its reply had not

¶51

8

¶52

raised the objection with regard to maintainability of claim application in its form nor the Claims Tribunal raised any objection and therefore, the claimant, poor unfortunate person who lost his leg, could not avail an opportunity to amend the pleadings and pursue the case accordingly.

¶53

Accordingly, MAC No.87/2019 filed on behalf of appellant Insurance Company is allowed. Impugned award is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Claims Tribunal to decide the claim case afresh in accordance with law, granting opportunity of hearing to both the sides. It goes without saying that the will be at liberty to amend their pleadings and also to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective case in addition to what has already been adduced. Parties to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 01.09.2025. Original record of claim case be despatched forthwith to the Claims Tribunal.

¶54

Digitally SYED signed ROSHAN by SYED ZAMIR ROSHAN ALI ZAMIR ALI

¶55

As a sequel to foregoing, MAC No.238/2019 filed on behalf of appellant-claimant seeking enhancement of compensation is dismissed.

¶56

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶57

roshan/-

Shirish Satnami v. Chandrashekhar Pod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shirish Satnami v. Chandrashekhar Pod

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Durgesh Khande Vs Champa Bai

Branch Manager Vs Vindeshwari

Bhanu Devi Vs Tahir Khan

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Vs Vittal Amritkar

Jila Ram Netam Vs Mohan Sethiya

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Ramjeet Marabi