Dr. Smt. Rajat Toppo Vs Amardeep Kujur

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:26971

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 357 of 2019

¶6

1 - Dr. Smt. Rajat Toppo W/o Shri Simplisius Toppo Aged About 49 Years CasteUraon, Occupation Doctor, R/o Nawapara, Phundurdihari Ambikapur, Police StationGandhinagar, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District (Revenue And Civil) Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

1 - Amardeep Kujur S/o Silas Kujur Aged About 25 Years Occupation Driver, R/o Village Bhagwanpur, Police Station Gandhinagar, Tahsil- Ambikapur, District (Revenue And Civil)- Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Meree Pushpa Lakda W/o Shri Abraham Lakda Aged About 40 Years Caste Uraon, R/o Indira Nagar, Phundurdihari Ambikapur, Police Station Gandhinagar, Tahsil Ambikapur, District (Revenue And Civil)- Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Through Branch Office, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Near Ambedkar Chowk. Manendragarh Road, Ambikapur, District (Revenue And Civil) Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondents

¶13

For Appellant : Mr. S.D. Singh, Advocate For Non-Appellant No. 3 : Mr. Raghvendra Verma, Advocate

¶14

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

¶15

Order On Board

¶16

23/06/2025

¶17

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in

¶18

Digitally SHUBHAM signed by DEY SHUBHAM DEY

¶19

2

¶20

its award dated 24.10.2018 passed by the 3^rd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 727/2013. The learned Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim application in part has awarded a total sum of Rs. 20,000/-.

¶21

Facts of the case in brief are that applicant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 pleading therein that in the year 2011, when the appellant went out from her home for errands, at that time, the offending vehicle bearing registration no. CG 15 B 5045 being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed one of the wall of the Appellant’s clinic, due to which, the Applicant’s clinic was badly damaged and one of the wall of the said clinic got cracks. Thereafter, the applicant for repairing of the damaged wall, expended Rs. 2,24,763/-, she also claimed further Rs. 1,00,000/- towards mental agony and loss of earning. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered against the Respondent No. 1 bearing Crime No. 418/2011, P.S. Gandhinagar, District – Sarguja for the offences punishable under Section 279 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.

¶22

The Non-Applicants No. 1 & 2 opposed the allegation leveled by the appellant before the learned Claims Tribunal and submitted that the offending vehicle owned by the Non-Applicants No. 2, on the date of accident was being driven by the Non-Applicants No. 1 and neither the offending vehicle met with an accident with the clinic of the applicant nor any wall of the said clinic was damaged. They further submitted that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle was insured with the Non-Applicant No. 3 and if it is found that vehicle is involved in accident, liability to satisfy the amount of compensation would be on

¶23

3

¶24

the Insurance Company. On the date of accident, the Non-Applicant No. 1 was also having a valid and effective driving license, therefore, the liability if any to satisfy the amount of compensation shall be of the Insurance Company.

¶25

The Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company also opposed the allegation leveled by the applicant before the learned Claims Tribunal and submitted that, there was no loss of human life and the case is based on false facts. It is also contended that as per the pleadings in the claim application, the appellant should have filed a civil suit before the competent Civil Court instead of claim application. The NonApplicant No. 3 also contended that the applicant failed to produce cogent and admissible piece of evidence to prove the damages caused to her clinic, except the pleadings made in the claim application. Therefore, the claim application deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the facts and evidence brought on record, have fastened the liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company. Further, the learned Tribunal recorded a finding that the damage to the wall of the claimant was a result of accident by the offending vehicle of the Non-Applicant No. 1 & 2 and the offending vehicle was not plied in breach of conditions of contract and thus, have awarded sum of Rs. 20,000/- as amount of compensation to the claimant.

¶27

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- by observing that in the accident, boundary wall of the appellant/claimant’s house got damaged, whereas, as per the pleadings made in the claim application, it is one of the wall of the clinic of the appellant which has been

¶28

4

¶29

damaged in the motor accident. It costs much more than Rs. 20,000/- to bring it in its original condition. He also submits that on looking to damage caused to the property by the motor accident, the claimant had immediately lodged a report to the concerned police station and accordingly, the police officer has also recorded the said fact and therefore, the amount of compensation as pleaded and prayed by the claimant/appellant in the claim application be awarded by allowing the appeal.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission of the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence recorded a finding that the cash memo submitted by the claimant is of 02 years after the accident which was rightly disbelieved by the learned Claims Tribunal. He contended that no other cogent or admissible piece of evidence has been produced by the appellant/claimant before the learned Claims Tribunal in support of her contention. He also contended that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the evidence brought on record by the parties have rightly considered the claim and awarded the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- which does not call for any interference.

¶31

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

¶32

Perusal of the F.I.R. filed by the claimant before the learned Claims Tribunal and exhibited as Ex. P/2 would show that it mentions that one Scorpio Vehicle bearing registration no. CG 15 B 5045 driven by its driver rashly and negligently dashed the wall of the house of the complainant due to which, there was a crack in one of the wall of the house. The appellant/claimant have submitted bill/cash-memo dated 18.10.2013 mentioning the amount of the goods purchased vide Ex. P/6 and P/7 which is being used for the repairing of damaged wall. It

¶33

5

¶34

mentions the goods like 120 bags of Cement, 13 tractors of Sand, 8 tractors of hard mud etc. including iron rods of about 1173 quintals.

¶35

It is not the case that in the accident, the entire house/construction was demolished and the slab of the house came down, but from the report, it is apparent that one of the wall of the house of the claimant/applicant damaged and suffered crack. There is no evidence to suggest that as a result of damage caused to one wall of the house/clinic, entire construction is to be made. The cash-memo for purchase of the building material is of 18.10.2013, whereas, the date of accident is 04.10.2011. The purchase of the building material is after 02 years from the date of accident, hence, in the opinion of this Court, considering the time-gap of purchase of the building material as also, the contents and the quantity of the goods as mentioned therein, I am of the opinion that the said building material may not be required for repair of one of the wall of the house/clinic damaged in accident and therefore, I do not find any error in disbelieving the cash-memo/bill submitted by the applicant/claimant as Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/7 by the learned Claims Tribunal. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 20,000/- for repairing of the crack as occurred in one of the boundary wall of the house of the applicant/claimant which cannot be said to be on lower side.

¶36

11.For the foregoing discussion, I do not find any merit in the appeal seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation. Accordingly, it is dismissed.

¶37

Certified copy as per rules.

¶38

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

¶39

Dey

Dr. Smt. Rajat Toppo v. Amardeep Kujur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr. Smt. Rajat Toppo v. Amardeep Kujur

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

Branch Manager Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt. Sunita Sahu

Smt. Rani Kori Vs Vijay Kumar Vastrakar

Deepak Vs Sushil Yadav

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Dujram Lahre

Smt. Chandani Bai Deewan Vs Raghunandan

Vijendra Lal Sahu Vs Narendra Singh