Smt. Punita Bai Chauhan Vs Sitaram Dhuri

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 355 of 2016

¶5

Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.06.24 17:04:22 +0530

¶6

Pardeshi Singh Chauhan S/o Tulsi Chauhan, Aged About 28 Years R/o VillageRisda, Naharpara, Thana/Tahsil-Masturi, Revenue/Civil Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .............Claimant, --- Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

1 - Sitaram Dhuri S/o Chamruram Dhuri, Aged About 36 Years R/o Kotmi Sonar, Champa, Thana Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ..........Driver,

¶9

2 - Iqubal Haque S/o Samsul Haque, R/o Near Torwa Primary School, ThanaTorwa, Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..........Owner,

¶10

3 - Ramkumar Sahu S/o Shri Vishal Sahu, R/o Village And Post- Devkirari, Nariyara, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ...........Owner Of Motor Cycle,

¶11

4 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office- 2nd Floor, Rama Tread Center, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Distt.Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ............Insurance Company Of Both Vehicle,

¶12

--- Respondents/Non-applicants

¶13

MAC No. 354 of 2016

¶14

1 - Bhagirathi Singh Chauhan S/o Tulsi Chauhan, Aged About 32 Years R/o VillageRisda, Naharpara, Thana/ Tahsil- Masturi, Revenue/ Civil Distt. Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .............Claimant, --- Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

1 - Sitaram Dhuri S/o Chamruram Dhuri, Aged About 36 Years R/o Kotmi Sonar, Champa, Thana Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ..........Driver,

¶17

2 - Iqubal Haque S/o Samsul Haque, R/o Near Torwa Primary School, ThanaTorwa, Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..........Owner,

¶18

3 - Ramkumar Sahu S/o Shri Vishal Sahu, R/o Village And Post- Devkirari, Nariyara, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ...........Owner Of Motor Cycle,

¶19

4 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office- 2nd Floor, Rama Tread Center, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Distt.Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ............Insurance Company Of Both Vehicle,

¶20

--- Respondents/Non-Applicants

¶21

2

¶22

MAC No. 353 of 2016

¶23

1 - Smt. Punita Bai Chauhan Wd/o Late Ramkhilavan Chauhan, Aged About 25 Years

¶24

2 - Ku. Sifali Chauhan D/o Late Ramkhilavan Chauhan, Aged About 1 Year Minor Through His Guardian Mother Smt. Punita Bai Chauhan,

¶25

3 - Smt. Brihspati Bai Chauhan W/o Babulal Chauhan, Aged About 48 Years

¶26

4 - Babulal Chauhan S/o Late Buddhuram Chauhan, Aged About 50 Years

¶27

5 - Ku. Usha Chauhan D/o Babulal Chauhan, Aged About 17 Years

¶28

6 - Manoj Chauhan S/o Babulal Chauhan, Aged About 16 Years

¶29

No.5 & 6 are Minors Through Guardian Mother Smt. Brihspati Bai Chauhan,

¶30

All are R/o Village- Kathakoni, Thana/ Tahsil- Takhatpur, Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ...........Claimants, --- Appellants

¶31

Versus

¶32

1 - Sitaram Dhuri S/o Chamruram Dhuri, Aged About 36 Years R/o Kotmi Sonar, Champa, Thana Akaltara, Distt. Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ..........Driver, 2 - Iqubal Haque S/o Samsul Haque, R/o Near Torwa Primary School, ThanaTorwa, Distt.- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ..........Owner,

¶33

3 - Ramkumar Sahu S/o Shri Vishal Sahu, R/o Village And Post- Devkirari, Nariyara, Distt.- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ...........Owner Of Motor Cycle, 4 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office- 2nd Floor, Rama Tread Center, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza, Bus Stand Road, Bilaspur, Distt.Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ............Insurance Company Of Both Vehicle,

¶34

--- Respondent(s)

¶35

For respective appellants	: Shri Samir Singh and Shri Arvind Prasad, Advocates.
For Respondents 1 & 2	: None.
For Respondent 3	: Shri Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate.
For Respondent4	: Smt.Swati Agrawal,Advocate.

¶36

( HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL )

¶37

Judgment on Board

¶38

19/06/2025

¶39

Since all above captioned appeals arise out of the same accident that occurred on 17.01.2011, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment.

¶40

These are the claimants’ appeals for enhancement of compensation of

¶41

3

¶42

Rs.1,17,400/- (Pardeshi Singh Chauhan/injured), Rs.75,600/- (Bhagirathi Singh Chauhan/injured) and Rs.3,96,500/- (Smt. Punita Bai Chauhan) awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Bilaspur (CG) (for short, the Tribunal) in Claim Case No.82/2013 (MAC No.355/2016), Claim Case No.83/2013 (MAC No.354/2016) and Claim Case No.81/2013 (MAC No.353/2016) vide awards dated 22.01.2015 & 31.01.2015 respectively.

¶43

As per averments in claim petitions, in the intervening night of 17.01.2011 at about 02:30 am, injured persons Bhagirathi & Pardeshi along with deceased person Ramkhilavan Singh were coming from village Risda to Kathajkoni (Takhatpur) on a motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.11-C-3365, which was being driven by Ramkhilavan and as he did not find the Truck bearing registration No. C.G.10/ZB/1454 (for short, the offending vehicle) which was parked without any indicator, he dashed the said Truck, as a result of which, accident occurred and all the three riders sustained grievous injuries and as a result of such grievous injuries, Ramkhilavan died on the spot.

¶44

Owing to injuries sustained by claimant – Pardeshi Singh Chauhan, he filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, the MV Act) seeking total compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- on various heads, inter alia, stating that at the time of accident, he was aged about 28 years and was earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as Fitter in Wardha Power Plant.

¶45

Similarly, injured/claimant Bhagirathi Singh Chauhan preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the MV Act seeking total compensation to the tune of Rs.5,00,000/- on various heads stating, inter alia, that at the time of accident, he was aged about 32 years and was earning Rs.6,000/- by working as Fitter in Wardha Power Plant.

¶46

Likewise, legal heirs of deceased Ramkhilavan also filed a claim petition under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act seeking total compensation of Rs.6,85,000/- on various heads stating therein that at the time of accident, he was aged about 25 years and was earning Rs.3,250/- per month by working as Mechanical Mistry in

¶47

4

¶48

Wardha Power Plant.

¶49

After appreciating the evidence, oral as well as documentary, brought on record, the learned Claims Tribunal held Non-applicant No.1/driver – Sitaram Dhuri liable for cause of accident as he stationed the Truck without giving indicator and parking lights; on account of such accident, claimants – Pardeshi Singh Chauhan and Bhagirathi Singh Chauhan sustained grievous injuries including permanent disablement whereas Ramkhilavan died on the spot; and there is no contributory negligence on the part of either parties; assessed and awarded total compensation, as mentioned in para 2 of this judgment, along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation while fastening the liability upon the insurance company/Non-applicant No.4 as it could not prove the violation of policy conditions.

¶50

Learned counsel for the respective appellants in injury cases submits that on account of accident, claimants Pardeshi and Bhagirathi were grievously injured including fractures on left femur bone with respect to Pardeshi and right femur bone with respect to Bhagirathi. The medical evidence of Dr.S.S. Bhatia coupled with disability certificates (Ex.P.41 & Ex.P.29) would show that Pardeshi suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% whereas Bhagirathi sustained disability 10% permanently and despite that the learned Claims Tribunal has reduced the same to the extent of 10% & 5% respectively as against the assessment of Dr. S.S.Bhatia, which is not sustainable. He further submits that the Tribunal also erred in assessing monthly income of the injured claimants at Rs.3,5,00/- and further submits that the accident occurred on 17.01.2011 and if the rates prescribed by the Chhattisgarh State Minimum Wages for unskilled persons during the period between 31.10.2010 to 31.02.2011 are considered, then the injured persons’ monthly income would be Rs.3,926/- and not below than that much amount. He next contends that the Claims Tribunal did not award any amount under loss of future prospects. He further contends that during course of treatment, rod was inserted and it required further treatment to remove the same, therefore, future

¶51

5

¶52

treatment expenses may reasonably be awarded. On these premises, he urged that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

¶53

With respect to death case (claim case No.81/2013), learned counsel for the appellants submits that the deceased’s monthly income of Rs.3,000/- assessed on notional basis by the Tribunal is on lower side and even if the provisions of minimum wages would apply on the date of accident, then he being an unskilled labourer could have easily earned Rs.3,250/- per month. At the time of accident, the age of the deceased was 25 and looking to the age of the deceased, multiplier of 16 used by the Tribunal is also on lower side whereas the appropriate multiplier would be 17, looking to the age of deceased. He further submits that on other heads and conventional heads also, the amounts awarded are on lower side.

¶54

In support of his arguments, he placed reliance upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matters of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Transport Corporation, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Company Limited vs. Pranay Sethi reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 and Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others reported in (2018) 18 SCC 130

¶55

Per contra, Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for respondent No.3/ in all the appeals submits that the learned Claims Tribunal, after due appreciation of the evidence and material documents, was justified in awarding fair and reasonable compensation in all claim cases, which does not call for interference.

¶56

Smt. Swati Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.4/insurer submits that no separate appeals against the impugned awards have been preferred and further admits that the offending vehicle ‘Truck’ was insured with the insurance company (respondent No.4). She further submits that in all claim cases, sufficient amount has been awarded by the Tribunal. She next submits that in MAC No. 353/2016, claim case No.81/2013 was filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act and Section 163-A of the M. V. Act has been amended and if this Court comes to

¶57

6

¶58

the conclusion that the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal deserves to be enhanced suitably, then the same may be restricted to Rs.5,00,000/- and not more than that, as in a proceeding under Section 163A of the M.V.Act, amount of compensation is required to be determined as specified in the amendment in Section 163-A of the MV Act. She placed her reliance upon a decision by the Supreme Court rendered in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Urmila Halder reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 4983, which was also relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants.

¶59

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

¶60

In these appeals, it is not disputed that Non-applicants No.1, 2 and 4 are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending vehicle whereas Non-applicant No.3 was the owner of the motorcycle. The learned Claims Tribunal held that on 1718.01.2011 the accident occurred on account of the offending vehicle being stationed negligently by its driver on a public road without any indicator or parking light, the motorcycle being driven by the deceased Ramkhilavan dashed the same, as a result of which, Pardeshi and Bhagirathi sustained grievous injuries whereas Ramkhilavan has died on the spot. Therefore, after considering the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held the Non-applicants No.1, 2 & 4 liable to indemnify the compensation, in particular, directed the respondent No.4/insurer to pay compensation.

¶61

MAC Nos.354/2016 & 355/2016

¶62

Perusal of record coupled with the impugned award would reveal that claimants – Pardeshi and Bhagirathi got injuries including fractures on their left and right femur bone and for that they were admitted in the Hospital from 17.01.2011 to 04.02.2011 for treatment and during treatment major operation was done and a rod was inserted to make the fracture good. In support of their evidence, A.W.2 Dr. S.S.Bhatia was examined, who is a Member Doctor of District Medical Board, has stated that after examining the injured person -Pardeshi Chauhan, he found that left femur bone was fractured and had stiffness in his left knee, due to this,

¶63

7

¶64

injured/claimant sustained 20% permanent disability, which was of mild category and gave disability certificate vide Ex.P.41. Similarly, A.W.2 has also examined Bhagirathi and has found that right femur bone was fractured and had stiffness on his buttock, due to this, he suffered 10% permanent disability and gave disability certificate vide Ex.P.29 in that regard. He has further stated that during treatment, rod was inserted in the body of both the claimants. However, the Tribunal, looking to the injuries suffered by both the claimants and the nature of their work, assessed on its own and reduced the permanent disability to the extent of 10% from 20% and 5% from 10% respectively, which in the considered opinion of this Court is not just and proper. Therefore, looking the nature and extent of injuries including fractures, the medical evidence of Dr. S.S.Bhatia and disability certificates (Ex.P.41 and Ex.P.29), I am of the considered opinion that in the said accident, both the injured claimants suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% & 10% respectively, as mentioned in the Ex.P.41 and Ex.P.29.

¶65

Now I shall focus on the assessment of monthly income of Rs.3,500/- made by the Tribunal, which, in the opinion of this Court, is on lower side. Therefore, considering the provisions of minimum wages and looking to the nature of their work, I propose to recompute the compensation by taking into consideration the amount of Rs.3,926/- as monthly income of the injured persons. In this way, the annual income would come to Rs.47,112/-. Further, the Tribunal has erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects. By applying the decision of Pranay Sethi (supra), the claimants/injured persons shall also be entitled to future prospects. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,000/- for loss of income for two months, Rs.10,000/- for physical and mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and transportation charges, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant expenses, Rs.4,000/- towards expenses incurred on treatment and Rs.5,000/- towards future treatment in claim case No. 82/2013 (Pardeshi Singh Chauhan) and worked out total compensation to Rs.1,17,400/-. Likewise, in claim case No. 83/2013 (Bhagirathi Singh Chauhan), the Tribunal awarded Rs.7,000/- for loss of income for

¶66

8

¶67

two months, Rs.10,000/- for physical and mental agony, Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and transportation charges, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant expenses, Rs.4,000/- towards expenses incurred on treatment and Rs.5,000/- towards future treatment and thus worked out total compensation to Rs.75,600/-. The award under the head ‘towards loss of future treatment is also on meager side.

¶68

After adding future prospects and enhancement in future treatment and taking guidance of the decisions rendered in the matters of Sarla Verma, Pranay Sethi and Magma General Insurance Company Limited, the injured claimants – Pardeshi and Bhagirathi are entitled to receive the additional compensation, which are as under:-

¶69

MAC No.355/2016 (Claim Case No. 82/2013) (Pardeshi Singh Chauhan)

¶70

S.No.	Description	Amount in Rs.
1.	Income of the injured/claimant @ Rs.3,926/- per month(Rs.3,926/- x 12)	47,112/-
2.	40% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects. Total annual income =	18,844/- ======== 65,956
3.	20%permanent disability	13,191/-
4.	Multiplier of 17 applied to assess total loss of dependency.	2,24,247/-
5.	Amounts under other heads except future treatment awarded bythe Tribunal	41,000/-
6.	For future treatment	15,000/-
	Total compensation	2,80,247/-
	Award of the learned Tribunal.(-)	1,17,400/-
	Enhanced amount by this Court	1,62,847/-

¶71

In this way, the claimant/injured – Pardeshi Singh Chauhan is entitled to get

¶72

additional compensation of Rs.1,62,847/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶73

MAC No.354/2016 (Claim Case No. 83/2013) (Bhagirathi Singh Chauhan)

¶74

S.No.	Description	Amount in Rs.
1.	Income of the injured/claimant @ Rs.3,926/- per month(Rs.3,926/- x 12)	47,112/-
2.	40% of (1) above to be added towards future prospects.	18,844/- ========
	Total annual income =	65,956
3.	10%permanent disability	6,595/-

¶75

9

¶76

4.	Multiplier of 16 applied to assess total dependency.	loss of 1,05,520/-
5.	Amounts under other heads except treatment awarded bythe Tribunal	future 41,000/-
6.	For future treatment	15,000/-
	Total compensation	1,61,520/-
	Award of the learned Tribunal.(-)	75,600/-
	Enhanced amount by this Court	85,920/-

¶77

Accordingly, the claimant/injured – Bhagirathi Singh Chauhan is entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.85,920/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal.

¶78

MAC No.353 of 2016 (Claim Case No.81/2013) (Smt. Punita Bai Chauhan &

¶79

ors.)

¶80

In the present appeal, the deceased Ramkhilavan Chauhan died of vehicular accident and on account of his death, a claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the M.V. Act. The Tribunal, considering the evidence and material available on record, fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/- and after assessment on its own, awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,96,500/-.

¶81

Admittedly, the claim petition was filed under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act on account of death of deceased Ramkhilavan and it stood proved by the oral as well as documentary evidence that the deceased died due to use of motor vehicle. In the light of above referred case rendered in the matter of New India Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. Urmila Halder (supra) and the present appeal is nothing but continuation of proceedings initiated under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act, which is a piece of social and welfare legislation enacted to prove relief to victims of road side accidents/their family members, the compensation in this case deserves to be enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- and accordingly, it would be just and proper to enhance a sum of Rs.1,03,500/- on other heads and if the amount of Rs.1,03,500/- is added to the amount of compensation of Rs.3,96,500/-, then it would come to Rs.5,00,000/-, which the claimants are entitled to.

¶82

Under the circumstance, the compensation of Rs.3,96,500/- awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.5,00,000/- with interest as awarded by

¶83

10

¶84

the Tribunal. It is made clear that the enhanced amounts of compensation and interest as awarded by the Tribunal in all the appeals shall be liable to be paid by the insurer, i.e., The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd/respondent No.4.

¶85

In the result, all the above captioned appeals filed by the respective appellants/claimants/injured persons are allowed in part with the modification in the

¶86

impugned awards to the above extent. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned awards shall remain in tact.

¶87

Sd/(Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE

¶88

Anjani

Smt. Punita Bai Chauhan v. Sitaram Dhuri

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Punita Bai Chauhan v. Sitaram Dhuri

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

Ashutosh Mantri Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Rohit Yadav

Smt. Nisha Yadav and Anr. Vs Satish Yadav

Pardeshi Singh Chauhan Vs Sitaram Dhuri

Bhagirathi Singh Chauhan Vs Sitaram Dhuri

Sanjay Babbar Vs Kunjlal Dadsena