Partly allowed¶36

Chhanulal Dhivar v. Ramprasad Barmate

Chhattisgarh HC9 Jul 2025MAC/525/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

MAC appeal; Section 173 Motor Vehicles Act 1988; enhancement of compensation; motor accident injury; rash and negligent driving; Tata Magic C.G.10-T-0932; pillion rider injured; fractures both hands; United India Insurance Company; insurer exonerated; liability on owner and driver; First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Raipur; Claim Case No. 507/2014; award dated 15.11.2017; interest 7.5% reduced to 6% on enhanced amount; Rs. 1,20,489/-; High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.; 2025.

What did the court decide?

Compensation enhanced: claimant entitled to Rs. 1,20,489/-, with interest @ 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of enhancement of the award till realization; impugned award modified to the above extent, rest of the conditions intact. ¶36

Chhanulal Dhivar Vs Ramprasad Barmate — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶36

Issue for consideration

Whether the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper or is on the lower side and requires suitable enhancement.

¶28

Court's answer

Looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant, sums of Rs. 15,489/- towards loss of income, Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 30,000/- towards special diet, assistance & travelling and Rs. 25,000/- towards future treatment stand awarded, and the rest of the awarded amount is reasonable and not required to be interfered with.

¶32

Ratio / Principle

The amount awarded in respect of loss of income is required to be enhanced; accordingly, Rs. 10,000/- more is awarded.

¶34

Key takeaways

The appeal is partly allowed; the claimant is entitled to Rs. 1,20,489/-, the enhanced amount carrying interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization; the impugned award stands modified to the above extent and the rest of the conditions remain intact.ratio¶36

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Motor Accident Claims appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MAC No. 525 of 2018, decided 10.07.2025) — Chhanulal Dhivar v. Ramprasad Barmate & Ors. — Enhancement of compensation. The claimant, injured when a rashly and negligently driven Tata Magic (C.G.10-T-0932) hit the motorcycle on which he was a pillion rider, had been awarded Rs. 1,10,620/- with 7.5% interest by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 507/2014 (award dated 15.11.2017), which had exonerated the insurer and fastened liability on the owner and driver. The High Court held that, looking to the injuries sustained, sums of Rs. 15,489/- (loss of income), Rs. 50,000/- (pain and suffering), Rs. 30,000/- (special diet, assistance & travelling) and Rs. 25,000/- (future treatment) stood awarded, that the rest of the awarded amount was reasonable, and that the loss-of-income component required enhancement, awarding Rs. 10,000/- more. The claimant's total entitlement was fixed at Rs. 1,20,489/- with interest @ 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of enhancement till realization; the impugned award was modified to that extent with the rest of the conditions intact. Appeal partly allowed.

¶1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:32105

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 525 of 2018

¶7

1 - Chhanulal Dhivar S/o S/o Bhaiyaram Dhivar Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kadar, Police Station Bhatapara, (Gramin), Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, (Chhattisgarh). At Present R/o Through Seetaram Verma, Janta Quarter No. 38, Sector-2, Shankar Nagar, Raipur, DistrictRaipur, Chhattisgarh. ..............Claimant, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Ramprasad Barmate S/o S/o Gaguram Barmate Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Maniyari Chowk, Salfa, Police Station And Tahsil Hirri District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. At Present R/o Bhagichand Satnami, Village Datrengi, Police Station Bhatapara, (Gramin), Tahsil Bhatapara, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ....................Driver Of Offending Vehicle Tata Magic Bearing Registration C. G. 10-T- 0932)., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh.

¶11

¶12

2 - Niranjan Kaushik S/o S/o Mansingh Kaushik Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Fokatpara, Near Bus Station, Sargaon, Police Station And Tahsil Hirri, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...............(Owner Of Offending Vehicle Tata Magic Bearing Registration C. G. 10-T- 0932)., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - United India Insurance Company, Through Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Second Floor Gurukripa, Towers, Vyapar Vihar, Office Amber Auto Mobiles Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. United India Insurance Company Limited Through Division Manager, Office First Floor, Krishna Complex, Katchhari Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ..............(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Tata Magic Bearing Registration. C. G. 10- T-0932)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

... Respondent(s)

¶15

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Gajendra Chelak, Advocate.
For Respondent(s) No.	: None.
1 & 2
For Respondent No. 3	: Ms. Prerana Agrawal, Advocate on
	behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate.

¶16

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

10/07/2025

¶19

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant for enhancement

¶20

¶21

against the award dated 15.11.2017 passed by the learned Fourth Additional Claims Tribunal of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 507/2014 whereby compensation of Rs. 1,10,620/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded.

¶22

Brief facts of the case, is that, respondent No.1 is the driver, respondent No.2 is the owner and respondent No.3 is the insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Magic bearing registration number C.G.10-T-0932. As per the claim, on 09.04.2014, the appellant was returning home to Kadar from Bhatapara on a motorcycle driven by his friend Vinod Verma. When they reached near the electricity transformer beside Surajpura Chowk, the appellant got down to cross the road for urination. At that moment, the offending vehicle, driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1, hit the motorcycle from behind, causing grievous injuries to the claimant, including fractures in both hands and injuries to the head, mouth, chest, and legs. Thereafter, he was admitted to Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur. Due to these injuries, the claimant suffered physical, mental and economic hardship and filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 13,00,000/- in MAC No. 12/2011. After issuance of notice, respondents No.1 and 2 denied the

¶23

¶24

averments, while respondent No.3 (insurance company) contended that the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license and no report of the accident was made to the concerned police authority, therefore, the insurer denied liability. After considering the evidence and documents, the learned Claims Tribunal did not assess the monthly income of the claimant but awarded Rs. 58,620/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 27,500/- for loss of income, Rs. 10,000/- for physical and mental pain, and Rs. 15,000/- for transport, attendant, and special diet, totaling Rs. 1,10,620/- with simple interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application. The tribunal exonerated the insurance company from liability and fastened the liability for payment of compensation upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The appellant submits that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is not just and proper in the eyes of law..

¶25

In the award passed by the Tribunal, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 27,500/- towards loss of income, Rs. 58,620/- towards medical bill, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of transport, attended expenses and special diet. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 1,10,120/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant/claimant.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims

¶27

¶28

Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,10,120/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the awarded compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, the compensation amount may be enhanced suitably. Hence, this appeal may be allowed and awarded amount needs to be enhanced suitably.

¶29

None for respondents No. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

¶30

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper and required no interference by this Court.

¶31

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

¶32

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 15,489/- towards loss of income, Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 30,000/towards special diet, assistance & travelling & Rs. 25,000/towards future treatment has been awarded looking to the injury sustained by the claimant and rest of the awarded amount is reasonable and not required to be interfered with.

¶33

¶34

Looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant the amount awarded in respect of loss of income is required to be enhanced.

¶35

Accordingly, Rs. 10,000/- more is awarded in the aforesaid Court.

¶36

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . The claimant now be entitled to get Rs. 1,20,489/-. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶37

SD/-

¶38

(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)

¶39

Judge

¶40

Raghu Jat

Chhanulal Dhivar v. Ramprasad Barmate

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chhanulal Dhivar v. Ramprasad Barmate

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

Smt. Nootan Chouhan Vs Arshad Ali Khan

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Vs Jagdish @ Bhurva

Ram Ratan Banjare Vs Jainuram Sori

Smt. Uttara Bai Vs Smt. Mala Kaushik

Heera Vs Pravesh Choudhary

Patiram Gupta Vs United India Insurance Company Limited