Smt. Hembati Sahu Vs Virendra Kumar Sahu

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:23145

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 356 of 2020

¶6

1 - Smt. Hembati Sahu W/o Lte Sukhram Sahu Aged About 70 Years R/o Diyabaati , Tehsil Gurur, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Virendra Kumar Sahu S/o Sukhdev Sahu Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Belodi, Police Station Ranchirai District Balod Chhattisgarh..(Owner Of Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration No. Cg 04 Hb 0155), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - The Orinetal Insurance Company Limited Divisional Manager Devisional Office, Parmanand Building , Near Dr. Rajendra Parki Durg District Durg Chhattisgarh.. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bearing Registration No. Cg 04 Hb 0155), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

For Appellant : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. B.P. Singh, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. H.S. Patel, Advocate

¶13

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

¶14

11/06/2025

¶15

SHUBHAM DEY

¶16

Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY

¶17

This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 31.10.2019 passed by the Learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District – Balod (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 125/2018.

¶18

2

¶19

Facts of the case in brief are that, on 27.09.2017, the appellant along with her family members was going towards Village Onakona for visiting a temple in a car bearing registration no. CG 04 HB 0155. On their way, the offending vehicle i.e. Truck bearing registration no. CG 04 JE 0639 dashed the car of the appellant and caused accident. In the said accident, the appellant suffered serious injuries, she was taken to hospital for treatment. Subsequent to the said incident, an offence was registered against the driver of the offending vehicle at P.S. Gurur for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 and 304A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶20

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal erred in applying the amended schedule which came into force with effect from 22.05.2018 whereas, the accident took place on 27.09.2017 and therefore, the old schedule under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 1988) prior to 22.05.2018 will apply and according to which, the appellant/claimant is entitled for Rs. 15,000/- towards the medical bills. In the case at hand, while computing the amount of compensation, the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the medical expenses.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company vehemently opposes the submission of the counsel for the appellant and would submit that even if the submission of the counsel for the appellant is admitted that the pre-amended second schedule appended to Section 163A of the Act, 1988 would apply, then also, the appellant would be entitled for fixed compensation as mentioned in the second schedule as Rs. 25000/- and Rs. 1,000/towards the non-grievous/minor injuries or Rs. 5,000/- towards the

¶22

3

¶23

grievous/major injuries which will be much less than the compensation as awarded to the appellant/claimant.

¶24

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

¶25

The amount of compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant is not challenged by the non-applicants. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the respective parties, it is to be considered that whether the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is lesser to the compensation for which, the claimant/appellant would be entitled for. Even if the submission of the counsel for the appellant is based on the pre-amended second schedule under Section 163A of the Act, 1988, the pre-amended second schedule under Section 163A of the Act, 1988 envisages for the fatal accident, amount of compensation shall not be less than Rs. 50,000/-, general damages in case of injuries and disabilities. Disability in non-fatal accident, notional income for computation or if no income prior to accident.

¶26

In the case at hand, the appellant suffered simple injuries and has not filed any medical document to show that the claimant/appellant suffered disability or grievous injuries. However, the case of the appellant is filed under the Clause general damages in case of injuries and disabilities i.e. (i) (b). Non grievous injuries for which, the amount of compensation towards the injury is of Rs. 1,000/- and fixed compensation towards the medical bill is to be awarded not exceeding Rs. 15,000/-, even if, the entire amount of Rs. 15,000/- is to be calculated for the purpose of awarding compensation, it will come to only Rs. 16,000/- in total. However, in the case at hand, the learned

¶27

4

¶28

Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 26,250/- applying the amended second schedule.

¶29

In the facts of the case, as in the application, amended schedule is not challenged by the respondents, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the impugned award and to accept the prayer of the appellant seeking enhancement for the amount of compensation. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed being sans merit.

¶30

Certified copy as per rules.

¶31

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

¶32

Dey

Smt. Hembati Sahu v. Virendra Kumar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Hembati Sahu v. Virendra Kumar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Tameshwari Kashyap Vs Vinod Kumar Banjare

Aman Kashyap @ Sanju Vs Vinod Kumar Banjare

Smt. Tameshwari Kashyap Vs Vinod Kumar Banjare

Smt. Sondulari Sahu Vs Uttam Kumar Singh Yadav

Khaniyalal Ravte Vs Mohit Kumar Yadav

The New India Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Sumitra Devi