Hemkumar Maheshwari Vs Santosh Kumar Verma

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:34541

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 336 of 2019

¶6

1 - Hemkumar Maheshwari S/o Shri Parasram Maheshwari Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Gaitara, Police Station - Kharora, Tahsil - Tilda, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---(Claimant), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Santosh Kumar Verma S/o Shri Beniram Verma Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Tulsi, Police Station Newra (Tilda), Tahsil Tilda, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. -- (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. Cg 04 Zc 0148), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Harish Wadhwani S/o Shri Raghuraj Wadhwani Aged About 42 Years R/o Gurunanak Garage Near Banstal Tilda, Police Station And Tahsil Tilda, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. --(Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. Cg 04 Zc 0148), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Madina Building, Kachery Road, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---(Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. Cg 04 Zc 0148), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate

¶14

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

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

21/07/2025

¶17

This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation in award dated 24.09.2018 passed by the

¶18

SHUBHAM DEY

¶19

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶20

2

¶21

Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.) in M.A.C.(C) No. 202/2014.

¶22

Facts of the case in brief are that, on 07.02.2013, applicant along with his friend Dharmendra Sharma was going towards his home to village Gatoura from Village Tilda on motorcycle bearing no. CG 04 KC 6792, on the way, a Truck bearing registration no. CG 04 ZC 0148 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) dashed the motorcycle. In accident, applicant/appellant and his friend Dharmendra Sharma suffered grievous injuries. They were taken to hospital for treatment and thereafter, they were referred to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur. Due to motor accidental injuries, claimant suffered permanent disability and was unable to do his day to day work. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered bearing Crime No. 44/2013, P.S. Tilda, District - Raipur for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the Respondent No. 1.

¶23

The applicant/claimant has pleaded in his claim application that on the date of accident, applicant was aged about 26 years, he was the only bread-winner of his family. He was employed as Supervisor in G.M.R. Power Company, Kharaora, District – Raipur and earning Rs. 15,000/per annum. In the motor accident, claimant suffered severe multiple injuries resulting in permanent disability and is unable to do his regular work and lost his earnings. Family of the claimant is suffering financially and claimed Rs. 40,55,000/- as compensation.

¶24

Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 submitted their reply to the claim application pleading that the Non-applicant No. 1 is Driver and the Non-Applicant No. 2 is owner of the offending vehicle. Accident occurred due to the

¶25

3

¶26

own negligence/contributory negligence of the applicant. On the date of accident, Non-applicant No. 1 was possessing valid and effective driving license and there was valid permit and fitness of the vehicle. On the date of accident, offending vehicle was insured with Non-Applicant No. 3 and therefore, liability if any, will be of Non-Applicant No. 3.

¶27

Non-Applicant No. 3/Respondent No. 3 in its reply pleaded that the accident occurred due to own negligence/contributory negligence of the applicant. Injuries suffered by the applicant were simple in nature, he did not suffer permanent disability. On the date of accident, NonApplicant No. 1 was not possessing valid and effective driving license. Further, Non-Applicant No. 3 pleaded that, on the date of accident, there was no valid and effective permit and fitness certificate to ply the offending vehicle and therefore, Non-Applicant No. 3 is not liable to satisfy the amount of compensation.

¶28

Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record allowed the application in part, fastened liability upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company to satisfy the amount of compensation and awarded Rs. 2,03,764/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant.

¶29

Learned counsel for the applicant/claimant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the Disability Certificate (Ex. P/87) issued by the Dr. A.A. Saifi wherein, disability suffered by the appellant is mentioned as 14%. She also submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation on other heads.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No.

¶31

3/Insurance Company opposes the submission of counsel for the

¶32

4

¶33

appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶34

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

¶35

So far as the submission of counsel for the appellant with regard to non-awarding of any amount of compensation towards permanent disability is concerned, the Claims Tribunal in para 13 and 14 of the impugned award held that claimant suffered amputation of right great toe. Claims Tribunal considering the pleadings made in the claim application and evidence of the claimant that he was doing work of Supervisor at G.M.R. Power Company, Kharora, District Raipur came to the conclusion that even if the claimant/appellant suffered permanent disability on account of amputation of his right great toe, he will not suffer loss of earning, as the work of Supervisory will not be affected by it. Said finding of the learned Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be erroneous and therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal, that the claimant did not suffer loss of earning due to amputation of right great toe.

¶36

Learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards loss of income for the laid down period of 02 months. Perusal of the documents would show that the claimant/applicant suffered motor-accidental injuries on 07.12.2013, took treatment at Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur from 09.02.2013 to 14.02.2013. He was again admitted at Raipur Hospital and Research Centre on 02.05.2013 and discharged on 08.05.2013, therefore, in the aforementioned facts of the case, the total period for which appellant took Treatment i.e. since February, 2013 till May, 2013

¶37

5

¶38

as discernible from the documents, the appellant was continuously taking treatment. In the discharge summary (Ex. P/14), the period of admission is mentioned as 02.05.2013 to 08.05.2013 and in the diagnosis column, it is mentioned ‘non-healing ulcer leg and one other injury on the foot’. Even after his discharge, appellant may be not be able to perform his work for sometime and therefore, I find it appropriate to award the compensation under the head of loss of income for a period of 04 months. The Claims Tribunal has assessed income as Rs. 10,000/- per month of the claimant and accordingly, the claimant will be entitled for loss of income during the period of treatment of Rs. 40,000/- (10,000 X 4).It is ordered accordingly.

¶39

Learned Claims Tribunal further awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards the pains and sufferings and Rs. 30,000/- towards the loss of amenities in life which in the opinion of this Court appears to be just and proper. Accordingly, it is affirmed .

¶40

Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 30,000/- towards the future treatment which according the facts of the case appears to be on the lower side. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant i.e. ‘non-healing ulcer leg and one other injury on the foot’, I find it appropriate to award Rs. 40,000/- instead of Rs. 30,000/- towards the future medical expenses. It is ordered accordingly.

¶41

Claimant will further be entitled for Rs. 5,000/- towards the special diet instead of Rs. 2,000/-, Rs. 3,000/- towards conveyance expenses instead of Rs. 1,000/- because from the documents, it is appearing that the appellant is a resident of Village Gatoura, P.S. Kharora, District – Raipur and the treatment has been taken from the hospital situated at Raipur. Further, the appellant will also be entitled for Rs. 1,05,764/-

¶42

6

¶43

towards the medical expenses as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.

¶44

For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the

¶45

amount of compensation payable to the appellants:-

¶46

S.	Heads	Compensation
No.
1.	Loss of income during laid down period(10,000 X 4)	: Rs. 40,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	: (+)Rs. 1,05,764/-
3.	Future medical expenses	: (+)Rs. 40,000/-
4.	Loss of amenities in life	: (+)Rs. 30,000/-
5.	Pains and sufferings	: (+)Rs. 30,000/-
6.	Special diet	: (+)Rs. 5,000/-
7.	Conveyance expenses	: (+)Rs. 3,000/-
	Total Compensation	: Rs. 2,53,764/-

¶47

Now, the Appellants/Claimants is awarded total compensation of Rs. 2,53,764/- . The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶48

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

¶49

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

¶50

Certified copy as per rules.

¶51

Sd/-- /-/--------/--/-

¶52

(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶53

Dey

Hemkumar Maheshwari v. Santosh Kumar Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hemkumar Maheshwari v. Santosh Kumar Verma

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

Mithlesh Changa Vs Shiv Bagas @ Vikash Sahu

Bandhan Singh Vs Itwar Singh

The National Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Ganga Bai

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Narendra Kashyap

Miss Anita Mitra Vs Lalit Mohan Singh Dev

Narendra Kumar Sahu Vs Suresh Verma