Aman Kashyap @ Sanju Vs Vinod Kumar Banjare

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:22814

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 51 of 2020

¶6

1 - Aman Kashyap @ Sanju S/o Ganga Prasad Kashyap Aged About 16 Years Aged About 19 Years, Now He Is Major, R/o Village Pali ( Seoni ) District - Janjgir Champa, At Present R/o Pankha Dafai, Bhairotal, Surakachhar, Tahsil Katghora, District - Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Vinod Kumar Banjare S/o L. P. Banjare Aged About 35 Years R/o Chakarbhatha, District - Bilaspur, Through Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, Son Of Balram Agrawal, R/o Through Mangat Ram - Banwari Lal Agrawal, Agroha Marg, Korba, Police Station - Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶10

2 - Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Balram Agrawal, R/o Through Mangat Ram - Banwari Lal Agrawal, Agroha Marg, Korba, Police Station, Tahsil And District - Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶11

3 - New India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office T. P. Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN

¶14

For Appellant : Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate Respondents No.1 & 2 : None present For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate

¶15

2

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶17

Order On Board

¶18

10/06/2025

¶19

Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District – Korba (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 01.10.2019 passed in Claim Case No.155/2016 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.1,96,617/- as compensation in an injury case.

¶20

Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that applicant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, DistrictKorba pleading therein that on 29/08/2016 at about 7:00 pm in the evening, Mohan Lal with his wife and their daughter Ananya were going towards Naila on motorcycle no. CG 11 CA/6675. On the way, on seeing appellant (nephew), Mohan Lal stopped his motorcycle by parking it on the side. At the same time, the driver of trailer no. CG 07 C/7251 i.e. non-applicant No.1 suddenly applied brake of the offending vehicle and reversed it without turning on backlight or blowing the horn and hit the motorcycle due to which, Mohan Lal and her daughter Ananya who were sitting on the motorcycle, received severe injuries. In the said accident, Mohan Lal Kashyap and Kumari Ananya died on the spot and the appellant also sustained severe injuries over his person. The claimant/appellant has prayed for a total compensation of Rs. 30,00,000/- due to the injuries suffered by him in the road accident.

¶21

3

¶22

Non-applicants in their written statement have denied all the facts mentioned in the claim application and has stated that no accident has occurred by the offending vehicle no. CG 07/C-7251. The aforesaid vehicle of non-applicant no. 02 is insured with New India Insurance Company Limited/respondent No.3. Therefore, the liability to pay amount of compensation, if any, is on non-applicant No.3/insurance company.

¶23

Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non-applicant No.1, due to which the appellant suffered injuries. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.1,96,617/- along with interest @ 7% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation.

¶24

Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation. She contented that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- under the head of pain and suffering, special diet and attendant etc. No amount has been awarded for loss of income during laid down period, hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced.

¶25

Learned counsel for respective respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, which does not call for any interference.

¶26

4

¶27

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

¶28

The learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and evidence recorded a finding that the appellant failed to prove the nature of employment and income and therefore, the learned Claims Tribuinal has assessed the income of the deceased as Rs.6107/- on notional basis taking help of the minimum wages prevailing on the date of accident. The said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in the opinion of this Court cannot be faulted with, hence, the said finding with respect to the assessment of income of appellant is affirmed.

¶29

Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of evidence has also recorded a finding that the appellant suffered 8% loss of earning capacity due to the permanent disability suffered in accident and accordingly calculated the amount of compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant could not be able to point out any error in recording such a finding. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.69512/towards medical expenses, which cannot be demonstrated to be erroneous or some medical bills though submitted before the Claims Tribunal has escaped consideration. In the said facts of the case, the amount of compensation awarded under the head of medical expenses is also correct and does not call for any interference.

¶30

Learned Claims Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- under the head of pains and suffering, special diet, attendant, conveyance and for future medical expenses. From the medical documents which is available on record and the discharge summary, would show that the appellant

¶31

5

¶32

suffered medical ailment due to the motor accidental injuries, which is extracted below for ready reference :-

¶33

“PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: He was conscious, talking, moving limb with B/L upper limb painful movement at shoulder. Pupils: B/L normal size and normally reacting to light. HR108/min, BP-130/90 mm of Hg, SpO2.98% on air. Local examination: sutured wound over forehead & upper lip (from outside).

¶34

CT Scan Brain (P) showed No Significant brain parenchymal abnormality.

¶35

CT Scan Dorsal spine showed fracture of superior end plate from D4 to D6 vertebral bodies with mild reduction in their height.

¶36

MRI Brain (Screening) showed normal study of brain, Subcutaneous tissue in left temporal fossa -Post trauma.

¶37

MRI Cervical spine showed Subtle cord widening with hyperintensity in T2W images at C2 to C6. Subtle hyperintensity in STIR images is seen in D3, D4 & D5 vertebra -?Bone bruise.

¶38

X-Ray Chest (PA), X-Ray Cervical spine (AP & Lat) X-Ray Dorsal Spine (AP & Lat). X-Ray Shoulder (AP Right & Left) & X-Ray Pelvis (AP): within normal limits.

¶39

USG whole Abdomen showed - mild UB wall thickening.

¶40

Severity of injury and risks of head injury risk of seizure, paralysis, bladder and bowel involvement, may have persistence of headache/giddiness and vomiting for few days and was explained in detail to the relatives. CT Scan Brain (P)/ MRI Brain (screening) done for further details and he was managed conservatively for head injury. Cleaning and dressing done for local sutured wound.

¶41

MRI Cervico- Dorsal Spine done to rule out any spinal injury (Post trauma) and suggestive of D3, D4, D5 marrow changes with D4 minimal wedging. Sitting and weight bearing not allowed and advised D/L brace application. CT Scan Dorsal spine also done and was planned for conservative treatment explained to relatives in view of no sensory motor deficit at present in lower limbs. Dr. G. S. Asati (Orthopedician) opinion taken for pain over pain in both shoulder. He examined,

¶42

6

¶43

evaluated & investigated the patient and was managed conservatively.

¶44

Later on he had complaints of pain in lower abdomen and had no bladder sensation and was managed conservatively with Foley's catheterized. Patient relatives explained about the same. Later on his bladder sensation is improved and able to self void. Risks and precaution explained to patient & relatives.

¶45

At the time of discharge, he is conscious, alert, accepting orally, no neurological deficit in lower limb at present, moving limbs and self voiding. Risks and precaution explained to patient.”

¶46

Looking to the nature of injuries as mentioned above, it is apparent that though the appellant took treatment as in patient from Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur for 7 days, however, he could not cured fully within 7 days and might have taken some more time. In the aforementioned facts of the case and looking to the nature of injuries as also the instructions by the treating doctor, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant could not able to perform his work for a period of two months, therefore, he is entitled for compensation towards the loss of income during the laid down period for the period of two months i.e. Rs.6107 x 2 = Rs.12,214/-. It is ordered accordingly.

¶47

Perusal of the impugned award would show that any amount towards future prospects has not been awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Anr., reported in (2023) 3 SCC 439 has settled the law with respect to grant of future prospects in case of permanent disablement incurred as a result of a motor accident. As per the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Pranay Sethi & Ors, reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680 , in case where victim of road accident

¶48

7

¶49

is below 40 years of age on the date of accident, 40% of assessed income is to be added towards future prospects. In the case at hand, at the time of incident, the injured was 16 years of age, hence, the income is required to be enhanced by 40% towards future prospects. As the income of the injured is assessed as Rs.6,107/- per month, hence, after addition of 40% towards future prospects, the total monthly income of the injured comes to Rs.8,549/- (6,107 + 2,442 = 8,549) and annual income of the injured works out to Rs.1,02,588/-.

¶50

As the injured was 16 years of age at the time of accident, therefore, the learned Claims Tribunal has rightly applied the multiplier of 18. Accordingly, after applying the multiplier of 18, the total income of the injured comes to Rs.18,46,584/-. As the loss of earning due to disability suffered by the appellant is held as 8%, the compensation has to be calculated by apportioning to 8% disability and accordingly total compensation under the head of loss earning capacity works out to Rs.1,47,726/-.

¶51

Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.20,000/- towards future medical expenses, conveyance expenses, pain and suffering, special diet and attendant, which in the opinion of this Court is too less, which looking to the facts and circumstances of the case is required to be enhanced. Accordingly, a sum of Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards attendant and Rs.5,000/- towards special diet is awarded.

¶52

On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :-

¶53

8

¶54

S.N.	Head		Amount.
1.	Loss of earning	:	Rs.1,47,726.00
2.	Loss of income during laid down period	:	Rs. 12,214.00
3.	Medical expenses	:	Rs. 69,512.00
4.	For pain and suffering	:	Rs. 15,000.00
5.	For attendant	:	Rs. 10,000.00
6.	For special diet	:	Rs. 5,000.00
	Total Compensation	:	Rs.2,59,452.00

¶55

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,59,452.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization.

¶56

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

¶57

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶58

Balram

Aman Kashyap @ Sanju v. Vinod Kumar Banjare

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Kashyap @ Sanju v. Vinod Kumar Banjare

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

Smt. Kaoushaliya Devi Vs Shri Madhusudan Singh

Smt. Gyanwati Chouhan Vs Ishatdev Kushwaha

Smt. Vandana Mishra Vs Ishatdev Kushwaha

Smt. Tameshwari Kashyap Vs Vinod Kumar Banjare

Smt. Tameshwari Kashyap Vs Vinod Kumar Banjare

Dinesh Kumar Vs Sidhayak Sahu