Dhaleshwar Vs Vishnu Das

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:23306

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 249 of 2019

¶6

1 - Dhaleshwar S/o Shri Hemlal Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Sarbada, Police Station And Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Versu

¶9

1 - Vishnu Das S/o Dhaniram Aged About 28 Years By Caste - Manikpuri, R/o Village Bagdehi, Police Station And Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Divisional Manager National Insurance Company Limited, Near Lalganga Comlex, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶13

S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge

¶14

Order On Board

¶15

12/06/2025

¶16

This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 11.01.2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari, District – Dhamtari (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 33/2017.

¶17

SHUBHAM DEY

¶18

Facts of the case in brief are that, on 15.08.2016, when the appellant along with his brother was going towards Dhatmari from Bhilai in his

¶19

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶20

2

¶21

motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 07 LJ 2809, at that time when they reached near a Dairy Shop at Village Mujgahan, the offending vehicle i.e. motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 05 U 1279 driven by the Respondent No. 1 dashed the appellant’s motorcycle and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered serious injuries, they were taken to Hospital for treatment. Subsequent to the accident, a crime was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 16/2017 at P.S. Arjuni, District – Dhamtari for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶22

Learned counsel for appellant submits that though multiple grounds are raised in this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation, however, he is pressing this appeal only on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards the permanent disability suffered by the appellant and further that meagre consolidated sum of Rs. 25,000/- has only been awarded on other heads and therefore, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 vehemently opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the appellant/claimant though have pleaded and stated that he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50-60%, however, he has not produced any documentary evidence in this regard i.e. the Disability Certificate issued by the competent authority nor have examined the treating doctor. The amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 25,000/- awarded on all other heads is just and proper in the facts of the case and does not call for any interference.

¶24

3

¶25

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

¶26

The short question raised by the learned counsel for the appellant with respect to non-award of the compensation under the head of loss of income due to permanent disability and the meagre sum i.e. Rs. 25,000/- awarded on the other heads like pains and sufferings, attendant and special diet.

¶27

Undisputedly, the appellant suffered motor accidental injuries. From the discharge summary placed on record as Ex. P-132 of Shri Krishna Hospital, Raipur, it is appearing that the appellant suffered multiple fracture injury over his person in the accident i.e. B/L fracture of mandible, Le fort fracture and Side Le Fort (R), Tibia (R). In the discharge summary, the date of admission is 15.08.2016 and date of discharge is 26.08.2016, which shows that initially, the appellant was admitted for about 11 days in the hospital for taking treatment. Further, the document Ex. P-144 is the other discharge summary of Shri Krishna Hospital, Raipur showing the date of admission of appellant as 02.11.2016 and date of discharge 07.11.2016 for removal of the implant.

¶28

So far as the submission of the counsel for the appellant with respect to the non-awarding of the compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability is concerned, perusal of record would show that the appellant has not submitted any Disability Certificate issued by the competent authority nor has examined the treating doctor in this regard. To award compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity due to permanent disability, it is for the claimant/appellant to place on record, admissible piece of

¶29

4

¶30

evidence which could be the Disability Certificate issued by the competent authority and also to examine the doctor to prove the same and if possible, to examine the treating doctor also.

¶31

In the case at hand, no such evidence is brought on record by the claimant/appellant. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in Para No. 14 that the permanent disability suffered by the appellant/claimant remains not proved, cannot be said to be erroneous and accordingly, the said finding of the learned Claim Tribunal is affirmed .

¶32

So far as the second submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation under the head of special diet, pains and sufferings, attendant etc. is concerned, undisputedly, appellant suffered multiple fracture injuries as mentioned in the discharge summary (Ex. P-132). He took treatment as impatient. The fracture injury suffered also got operated and the rod was implanted and further, other discharge summary (Ex. P-144) also mentions that the appellant was again admitted in the said hospital for removal of the implant. In the aforementioned facts of the case and looking to the nature of injuries suffered, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding sufficient amount under the head of pains and suffering and therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 20,000/- under the head of pains and sufferings. The appellant was resident of Tehsil Kurud, District – Dhamtari and he took treatment in Shri Krishna Hospital, District – Raipur and therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 5,000/- towards the conveyance expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards

¶33

5

¶34

special diet and Rs. 10,000/- towards the attendant in the facts of the case.

¶35

11.Further, looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant i.e. multiple fractures over his person and he was further admitted to the hospital for removal of the implant in the month of November, 2016 and therefore, I am of the view that from the date of accident i.e. 15.08.2016 till the month of November, 2016, the appellant may not be able to perform the work of Labourer for the purpose of earning of his livelihood and therefore, the appellant is entitled for loss of income during the laid down period for a period of 04 months. On the date of accident, though the pleading of the appellant is that he was working as Mason, however, no admissible piece of evidence is brought on record in this regard and therefore, the nature of employment of the appellant is taken as Labourer.

¶36

The date of accident is of the year 2016 and therefore, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the appellant as Rs. 6,000/- per month and accordingly, the total amount of compensation towards the loss of income during the laid down period would come to Rs. 24,000/(6000 X 4). Claimant will be entitled for the compensation under the head of medical expenses of Rs. 2,70,900/- as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal.

¶37

In the facts of the case and discussions as observed, I find appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation.

¶38

14.Now, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the total amount of compensation which is as under:-

¶39

Rs. 3,39,900/- [2,70,900 (medical expenses) + 10,000 (special diet) + 10,000 (attendant) + 5,000 (conveyance expenses) +

¶40

6

¶41

20,000 (pains and sufferings) + 24,000 (loss of income during laid down period)}

¶42

This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶43

Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.

¶44

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

¶45

Certified copy as per rules.

¶46

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶47

Dey

Dhaleshwar v. Vishnu Das

Case brief

What is this about?

Dhaleshwar v. Vishnu Das

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

Smt. Hembati Sahu Vs Virendra Kumar Sahu

Smt. Sondulari Sahu Vs Uttam Kumar Singh Yadav

Khaniyalal Ravte Vs Mohit Kumar Yadav

The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd Vs Smt.Kaushilya Bai

Smt. S. Laxmi Vs Ravikant Sharma

Surekha Sahu Vs Vinit Kumar @ Lal Sahu