Dashrath Dhimar Vs Kamlesh Deshmukh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:49624

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 416 of 2018

¶6

1 - Dashrath Dhimar S/o Late Sudhuram Dhimar Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Achhoti, Police Station Anda, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Kamlesh Deshmukh S/o Ramdhin Deshmukh Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Khada, Post Nikum, P.S. Anda, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Metador Bearing Registration C.G.07 C.A./0229), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Smt. Saroj Bala W/o Rajesh Pandey R/o Village Kolihapuri, Post Chandkhuri, P.S. Pulgaon, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Metador Bearing Registration C.G.07 C.A./0229), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Division Manager, Rajendra Prasad Chowk, Parmanand Bhawan, G.E.Road, Durg, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Metador Bearing Registration C.G.07 C.A./0229), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. K. Malviya, Advocate

¶14

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

2

Order on Board

06/10/2025

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 16.11.2017 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No.116/2014.

¶19

The averment in the claim petition, in brief, is that on 27.05.2014 at approximately 9:00 a.m., while he, along with his friend Pawan Nirmalkar and others, were proceeding to their daily labour work near village Achhoti, specifically near Karma Bhawan in village Kolihapuri, they were suddenly involved in an accident caused by a Tata Metador vehicle bearing registration number C.G. 07 C.A./0229. The said vehicle was driven rashly and negligently by respondent no. 1, the driver, who lost control and struck the claimant, causing him to sustain serious injuries. A report was lodged against respondent no. 1 at P.S. Pulgaon, and a case was registered as Crime No. 274/14 under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the Indian Penal Code. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained injuries to his right thigh, leg, and other parts of his body, necessitating admission to Visharda Hospital, Raipur, where he underwent surgery for a compound comminuted fracture of the right femur bone. The claimant was discharged on 17.07.2014 and subsequently filed a claim before the learned Claims Tribunal. Notices were issued to the respondents, with respondents no. 1 and 2 appearing ex parte, while respondent no. 3, the insurer of

¶20

3

¶21

the offending vehicle at the time of the incident, participated in the proceedings. After considering the evidence and hearing the parties, the Claims Tribunal allowed the claimant’s claim and held respondents no. 1 and 3 jointly liable. However, the claimant contends that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is inadequate and not just or proper in the eyes of law, thereby preferring this appeal.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has manifestly erred in awarding a meager and grossly inadequate amount of compensation, which is unjust and inequitable in the circumstances of the case and thus, is liable to be enhanced. It is submitted that the claimant is a laborer by profession, and the Tribunal has accepted his monthly income at a mere Rs. 4,000/-, a figure that is arbitrarily low and inconsistent with the established facts and evidence on record. According to government norms and prevalent wage standards, the daily income of a laborer amounts to Rs. 200/-, which, when computed monthly, totals Rs. 6,000/-; this fundamental aspect was wholly disregarded by the learned Tribunal. Furthermore, the claimant being a private laborer, has suffered a permanent loss of earning capacity consequent to the accident, a critical factor that was neither adequately considered nor properly quantified by the Tribunal. Additionally, during the entire course of his treatment, the claimant’s daily income loss was not taken into account, thereby causing further prejudice to his rightful claim. While the Tribunal

¶23

4

¶24

awarded Rs. 2,16,232/- towards medical expenses, this sum does not adequately compensate the claimant’s actual expenditure and suffering. Moreover, the learned Tribunal, in granting a total compensation of Rs. 2,80,232/-, directed the respondents to pay interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition; however, this interest rate is manifestly insufficient and contrary to the principles of justice and equity, and the rate of interest ought to be enhanced to 12% per annum, to justly compensate the claimant for the delay and hardship caused. In light of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal be duly enhanced in all respects, reflecting the true quantum of loss, pain, and suffering endured by the claimant, and that the rate of interest be suitably increased to uphold the ends of justice.

¶25

The appellant also suffered loss of amenities and quality of life, which merit separate consideration. It was thus submitted that all heads of damages such as loss of income, medical expenses, transportation, attendant charges, pain and suffering, and future prospects require significant upward revision. The appellant prayed that the compensation be enhanced substantially to a sum that would fairly and adequately compensate him for his injuries, losses, and hardships.

¶26

In response, learned counsel for the respondent-Insurance Company respectfully submits that the compensation awarded by

¶27

5

¶28

the learned Claims Tribunal is fair and reasonable, having been determined based on the evidence and material placed before the Tribunal. It is submitted that the Tribunal has duly considered the claimant’s occupation, income, and extent of injuries sustained, and has made an appropriate assessment of the loss of income and medical expenses. The Insurance Company denies any liability beyond the amount awarded by the Tribunal and submits that the claimant’s income has been reasonably evaluated in light of the evidence, and the compensation awarded adequately reflects the claimant’s actual loss. Further, the rate of interest granted at 6% per annum from the date of institution of the claim petition is in accordance with the prevailing legal principles and judicial precedents and ought not to be enhanced. The Insurance Company prays that the award passed by the Tribunal be upheld in its entirety, and the appeal be dismissed with costs.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed along with the record.

¶30

Upon careful examination of the facts and submissions, the Court finds merit in the plea of appellant for enhancement of compensation. This Court deems it appropriate to consider the notional income of the injured as Rs.5468/- per month which is Rs.65,616/- per annum, and enhancement in various heads such as attendant and pain and suffering, was found to be inadequate and the compensation must be enhanced to fairly address all losses suffered by the appellant.

¶31

6

¶32

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the documents available on record.

¶33

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the amount granted by the trial Court is on the lower side, further keeping in mind the injury sustained by injured, she was advised for bed rest due to pain & suffering, Special diet would be

¶34

enhance as such the award is modified to the extent :-

¶35

Sn.	Heads	Calculation
01	For Treatment	Rs.2,16,232/-
02	For Attendant	Rs.20,000/-
03	For Pain & Suffering	Rs.50,000/-
04	Income of Injured	Rs.32,808/-
	Total	Rs.3,19,040/-

¶36

The amount of compensation of Rs.2,80,232/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs.3,19,040/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.2,80,232/-, the claimant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs.38,808/-, the additional amount shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the appeal within the period of 60 days . Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal award remain intact.

¶37

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.

¶38

Sd/- Sd/(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶39

Judge

¶40

Digitally
ABHIGYA signed by
SAXENA ABHIGYA
SAXENA

¶41

Saxena

Dashrath Dhimar v. Kamlesh Deshmukh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dashrath Dhimar v. Kamlesh Deshmukh

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

Rajesh Kumar Mishra Vs Smt. Madhuri Mishra

Smt. Jamuna Devi Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Raj Pandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Navneet Anand Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Sanim Dhritlahare Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kanhaiya Lal Banjarey Vs State of Chhattisgarh