Rahul Bhaskar Vs Sanjeev Thomas

¶1

-1-

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

MAC No. 577 of 2024

¶5

1 - Rahul Bhaskar, S/o Late Bharatlal Bhaskar, Aged About 31 Years R/o VillageKabir Ward Gembo Para, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) ... Appellant

¶6

versus

¶7

1 - Sanjeev Thomas S/o Subhash Thomas, Aged About 49 Years (Wrongly Typed As Kashyap), R/o Village- Chandrakhuri, P.O. Baitalpur, P. S. Sargaon, District- Mungeli (C.G.) --Driver Of Scorpio No. Cg-22p-8690--

¶8

2 - Jhaluram Tandon S/o Raghunandan Tandon, Aged About 43 Years R/o VillageGatapar, P.S. Palari, District Balodabazar (Cg) ---Owner Of Scorpio No. Cg-22p8690--

¶9

3 - Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Office No. T, 8 Vyapar Vihar Main Road, Near I.C.I.C.I. Bank Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) -- Insurer Of Scorpio No. Cg-22p-8690-- ... Respondents

¶10

... Respondents

¶11

For Appellant/Claimant	: Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	: Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate holding the
	brief of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate
For respondents No.1 & 2	: None appears though served

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶13

20.11.2025

¶14

1. Heard.

¶15

1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Claim Case No.38/2022 dated 23.11.2023 whereby, the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs.86,100/- with interest @ 7% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶16

-2-

¶17

1. The facts in brief are that on 18.04.2022 at about 5:00 p.m., the claimant was going towards Mungeli and when he reached village Maro, driver of the offending vehicle Scorpio bearing reregistration No.C.G.-22-P-8690 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the bike of the claimant, consequently, he sustained injuries including fracture of tibia and fibula bones of right leg. He remained hospitalized at MMI Narayana Hospital Raipur for a period of 10 days. The claimant filed a claim case, wherein, he pleaded that he was working to the post of Deputy Manager at ICICI Bank Bhatapara and earning Rs.43,000/- per month and he claimed a sum of Rs.54,50,000/-. The driver and owner remained ex parte. The respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed reply and pleaded that the driver of offending vehicle did not have effective and valid driving licence at the time of accident. Learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led evidence and thereafter, an award was passed.

¶18

1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that the claimant had sustained serious injuries and surgery was done as there was fracture of tibia and fibula bones of right leg. He would further submit that the claimant had sustained injuries over other parts of body too. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has not honoured the medical expenses incurred in the treatment. It is also contended that on other conventional heads, learned Tribunal has awarded a meager amount. He would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶19

1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the

¶20

-3-

¶21

respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr.Singroul. She would submit that the offending vehicle was insured with Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited, whereas, motorcycle was insured with ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and the claimant has already claimed a sum of Rs.3,98,526/from ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company, therefore, the claimant is not entitled for any compensation from the insurer of the offending vehicle. She would further submit that the claimant failed to examine the treating doctor to prove seriousness of injuries. She would contend that on conventional heads, learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. She would submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

1. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶23

1. It is true that the claimant failed to produce any disability certificate to establish that he had suffered disability on account of injuries sustained by him. Further, the claimant failed to examine the treating doctor to prove seriousness of injuries. The claimant placed on record medical bills vide Ex.P/10 to Ex.P/44. The learned Tribunal held that a sum of Rs.3,98,526/- has already been paid by ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company and bills of Rs.42,609/- are left to be honored. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- for special diet and conveyance; Rs.20,000/- for

¶24

-4-

¶25

future medical expenses and Rs.8,460/- for attendant. Learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of earning for the period the claimant remained hospitalized.

¶26

1. The claimant presented medical bills to the tune of Rs.4,17,339/incurred in his treatment and insurer of the motorcycle i.e. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited has already made payment of Rs.3,98,526/- and thus, only Rs.42,609/- is left. The claimant has chosen to claim compensation from the insurance company of offending vehicle. When two vehicles are involved in the accident, the claimant has right to claim compensation from insurer of any vehicle. Therefore, the claimant has rightly claimed compensation from Tata AIG General Insurance Company.

¶27

1. The law in this regard is no more res integra and the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of T. O. Anthony v. Karvarnan and others, (2008) 3

¶28

SCC 748 ., while dealing with the similar issue held as under :

¶29

“ 6 . 'Composite negligence' refers to the negligence on the part of two or more persons. Where a person is injured as a result of negligence on the part of two or more wrong doers, it is said that the person was injured on account of the composite negligence of those wrong-doers. In such a case, each wrong doer, is jointly and severally liable to the injured for payment of the entire damages and the injured person has the choice of proceeding against all or any of them. In such a case, the injured need not establish the extent of responsibility of each wrong-doer separately, nor is it necessary for the court to determine the extent of liability of each wrong-doer separately. On the other hand where a person suffers injury, partly due to the negligence on the part of another person or persons, and partly as a result of his own negligence, then the negligence of the part of the injured which contributed to the accident is referred to as his contributory negligence. Where the injured is guilty of some negligence, his claim for damages is not defeated merely by reason of the negligence on his part but the damages recoverable by him in respect of the injuries stands reduced in proportion to his contributory

¶30

-5-

¶31

negligence.”

¶32

1. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.42,609/- against medical bills presented by the claimant; Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/for special diet and conveyance; Rs.20,000/-for future medical expenses and Rs.8,460/- for attendant. The compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal on above-stated heads appears to be just and proper. The sum awarded by the learned Tribunal Rs.5,000/- for special diet and conveyance require reconsideration. Learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of earning as the claimant remained hospitalized for 10 days.

¶33

1. As pleaded by the claimant that his salary was Rs.43,000/- per month, thus, he would be entitled for a sum of Rs.14,000/- for loss of earning of 10 days; for special diet a sum of Rs.5,000/- and for conveyance Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, the claimant would be entitled for an additional sum of Rs.19,000/-. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions mentioned in award shall remain intact. The respondents are held liable jointly and severally to satisfy the award.

¶34

1. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶35

Sd/-

¶36

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶37

Rekha

Rahul Bhaskar v. Sanjeev Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Bhaskar v. Sanjeev Thomas

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

P. v. Rao Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Mumtaz Vs Ajay Kumar Tandon @ Bablu

Smt. P. Asha Rao Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vijay Kumar Sahu Vs Dharmendra Singh Meravi @ Bablu

Smt. Taramani Paikra Vs Shiva

Yogita Dewangan Vs Ishwar Dayal Yadav