Jubeda Begam Vs Dharamjaigarh Public H.s. School

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT

¶3

2025:CGHC:30988

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 58 of 2018

¶7

1 - Jubeda Begam W/o Makbul Husain Aged About 44 Years Occupation Bengal Selling, R/o Behra Para Dharamjaigarh, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant(s)

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Dharamjaigarh Public H.S. School S/o Gajanand Agrawal Through Ajay Agrawal S/o Gajanand Agrawal Samajik Vikas Samiti, Dharamjaigarh, Tahsil Dharamjaigarh, District, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Suresh Singh S/o Shankhu Singh Thakur Aged About 50 Years R/o Patra Para Dharamjaigarh, Tahsil. Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. , District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - Branch Manager, The New India Insurance, Company Ltd. Branch

¶13

Office Sattigudi Chowk District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ..........NonApplicants., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

2

¶15

... Respondent(s)

¶16

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Manoj	Kumar Jaiswal,
	Advocate.
For Respondent(s)No. 1 & 2	: None.
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. RajAwasthi,	Advocate.

¶17

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Order on Board

¶19

07/07/2025

¶20

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant for enhancement against the award dated 25.07.2017 passed by the learned 1^st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh District – Raigarh (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 49/2014 whereby compensation of Rs. 1,08,356/- with interest @ 8% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded.

¶21

Brief facts of the case, is that, on 25.08.2013 at about 3:30 PM, the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing Registration No. CG-13 Q/0390 (Engine No. D37023783 and Chassis No. MC1E4DHAXDP008050), drove the vehicle rashly and negligently into the Dharamjaigarh Bazar Dand and dashed into the appellant, who was selling bangles, causing her serious injuries including a fracture in her back, injury on the left heel, and breast. An FIR was lodged at the concerned police station,

¶22

3

¶23

and an offence under Sections 279, 337, and 338 of the IPC was registered against the driver. As a result of the accident, the appellant suffered severe injuries and filed a claim case before the Learned Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 19,27,640/- towards loss of earnings, medical expenses, future treatment costs, and physical and mental agony. While respondent No.1 remained ex parte, respondents No.2 and 3 filed their reply denying the occurrence of the incident involving the offending vehicle. After evaluating the evidence and documents on record, the Learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,08,356/- through its impugned award dated 25.07.2017, which the appellant contends is meager in light of the injuries and circumstances.

¶24

In the award passed by the Tribunal, the tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 36,500/- towards loss of income, Rs. 66,756/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 1,000/- towards mental and physical agony, Rs. 1,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 1,600/- towards Assistance & Rs. 1,500/- towards travelling. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 1,08,356/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant and respondent No. 3 insurance company was held liable to pay the compensation amount to the appellant.

¶25

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,08,356/- which is not in

¶26

4

¶27

accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that at the time of accident, the appellant was involved in the work of running Bengal selling and was earning Rs. 7,000/- per month. 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.

¶28

None for respondents No. 1 & 2.

¶29

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.

¶30

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

¶31

Both the parties are ready to argue the matter and accordingly instead of sending the matter before mediation center it is being decided by this Court itself.

¶32

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that the doctor has not been examined in this case and as such the injuries sustained by the claimant could not

¶33

5

¶34

be affirmed, however, the tribunal has considered the entire aspect of the matter and has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,08,356/-.

¶35

Looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant the amount awarded in respect of pain and suffering is required to be enhanced.

¶36

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 45,000/- towards pain and suffering in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. 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

Jubeda Begam v. Dharamjaigarh Public H.s. School

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jubeda Begam v. Dharamjaigarh Public H.s. School

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

Sunni Muslim Jamaat Korba Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shiv Bhagwan Rameshwar Lal Charitable Trust Vs Atul Bajaj

Shri Sourabh Sonchhatra Vs Atul Bajaj

Smt. Gulabi Baug Vs Ravi Thomas

Dhanmet Vs Atwari

Branch Manager, Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited, Vs Nasir Khan