Dipak Kumar Sahu Vs Mayank Sharma

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:34908

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 344 of 2020

¶6

1 - Dipak Kumar Sahu S/o Raghunandan Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Mauharkhar, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Mayank Sharma S/o Hiralal Sharma R/o Jagannath Math Mandir, Champa Tahsil Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.............(Driver Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C. G. 11 Ca 8799), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Hiralal Sharma S/o Dhaniram Sharma R/o Jagannath Math Mandir, Champa Tahsil Champa District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh.............(Onwer Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C. G. 11 Ca 8799), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Near Old Bus Stand, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh .............(Insurer Of The Vehicle Motor Cycle No. C. G. 11 Ca 8799), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Ms. Neelam Khan, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Azad Siddique, Advocate

¶14

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

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

22/07/2025

¶17

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned 2^nd Additional

¶18

SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶19

2

¶20

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) by its award dated 05.09.2019 in Claim Case No. 414/2018.

¶21

Motor-accidental injuries suffered by the appellant, involvement of the offending vehicle, Respondent No. 3/Non-Applicant No. 3 to be the insurer of the offending vehicle and liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner is not in dispute, hence, this Court is not adverting to the facts as pleaded in the claim application, reply as discussed by the Tribunal in the impugned award. However, this Court is only considering the grounds raised in this appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation and the submission of the counsel for the respective parties in this regard.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation disbelieving income certificate issued by Dr. C.V. Raman University, Kota, District – Bilaspur wherein, earning of the claimant is shown to be Rs. 17,558/- p.m. and after deduction of provident fund, tax etc., net payable salary is mentioned as Rs. 14,408/- p.m. She also contended that the amount of compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side.

¶23

On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation is upon the NonApplicants No. 1 & 2 i.e. the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. He contended that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was not insured with the Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company.

¶24

Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 are not represented though served.

¶25

3

¶26

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

¶27

Perusal of record would show that the claimant/applicant in support of the plea of income has submitted salary slip (Ex. A/14) dated 07.12.2017 mentioning total earning as Rs. 17,558/- issued under the signature of the Finance Head, Dr. C.V. Raman University, Kargi Road, Kota, District – Bilaspur. To prove salary slip (Ex. A/14), authority issuing the document has not been examined. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal has not committed any error in recording a finding that the document i.e. Salary Slip (Ex. A/14) is not proved in accordance with law and assessing the income of the deceased on notional basis as Rs. 10,000/- per month. The said finding of the learned Claims tribunal is affirmed .

¶28

So far as the second ground raised by the counsel for the appellant that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount of compensation under the other heads is concerned, the Claims Tribunal has awarded medical expenses of Rs. 2,50,607/-. It is not the case of the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal escaped consideration of any of the admissible medical bills placed before it and therefore, the award of compensation under the head of medical expenses is also affirmed .

¶29

Learned Claims Tribunal has further awarded Rs. 60,000/- towards the loss of income during the laid down period. In absence of any evidence to show that appellant could not able to work as pleaded in the claim application even after 06 months, I do not find any error in the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards the loss of

¶30

4

¶31

income during the laid down period of 06 months. Accordingly, it is also affirmed .

¶32

The amount of compensation awarded under the head of conveyance expenses of Rs. 10,000/- and pains and sufferings of Rs. 50,000/- appears to be just and proper. The claimant/applicant suffered severe head injury. He also underwent operation in Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. As per medical documents including the Discharge Summary (Ex. A-10), it appears that he remained admitted in hospital from 11.12.2017 to 18.12.2017 i.e. 08 days and therefore, looking to the injuries suffered, he has to take bed rest for a long time. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of special diet of Rs. 5,000/- is less and therefore, it is enhanced to Rs. 15,000/-. The learned Claims Tribunal has not warded any amount of compensation towards grievous injuries suffered by the applicant/claimant. Looking to the nature of injuries as mentioned in the Discharge Summary (Ex. A/10) of Apollo Hospitals, Bilaspur mentioning that the appellant suffered bi-frontal depressed fracture with pneumocephalus and underwent surgery of bi-frontal craniotomy and depressed fracture, neuroplasty under GA, I find it appropriate to award compensation of Rs. 25,000/- towards grievous injury. It is ordered accordingly.

¶33

11.For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellant.

¶34

S.	Heads	Compensation
No.
1.	Grievous Injury	: (+)Rs. 25,000/-
2.	Medical Expenses	: (+)Rs. 2,50,607/-

¶35

5

¶36

3.	Loss of income during laid down	: (+) Rs. 60,000/-
	period(10,000 X 6)
4.	Pains and sufferings	: (+)Rs. 50,000/-
5.	Conveyance expenses	: (+)Rs. 10,000/-
6.	Special diet	: (+)Rs. 15,000/-
	Total Compensation	: Rs. 4,10,607/-

¶37

Now, the Appellant/Claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 4,10,607/- . 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.

¶38

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

¶39

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

¶40

Certified copy as per rules.

¶41

Sd/-- /-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶42

Dey

Dipak Kumar Sahu v. Mayank Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dipak Kumar Sahu v. Mayank Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hemkumar Maheshwari Vs Santosh Kumar Verma

The United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Narendra Kashyap

Miss Anita Mitra Vs Lalit Mohan Singh Dev

Mohokumari Vs Jitender Singh

Priyanka Paikara Vs Jahid Khan

Icici Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Smt. Ramkali Dhiwar