Reeta Patwa Vs Rehanu Raja @ Bhai Jaan

1 - Rehanu Raja @ Bhai Jaan S/o Mubarak Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Village Khairha, Police Station Khairha, District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh.

¶10

2 - Smt. Aasma W/o Late Moh. Farukh Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village Khairha, Police Station Kahirha, District Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh,

¶11

3 - Branch Manager Cholamandalam General Insurance Company Ltd. Second Floor, Simran Tower, Pandri, Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

¶12

--- Respondents

¶13

BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Date: 2025.09.23 16:32:32 +0530

¶14

For Appellant :	Mr. Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents No.1 &2:	Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate
For Respondent No.3 :	Ms. Shrishti Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of
	Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶16

Order On Board

¶17

19/08/2025

¶18

Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking

¶19

2

¶20

enhancement of compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Baikunthpur, District – Korea (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 24.10.2019 passed in Claim Case No. 38/2018 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.1,25,577/- as compensation in an injury case.

¶21

Fact that the accident was caused by the offending vehicle, which was insured by Non-Applicant No. 3, resulting into the injuries suffered by appellant/claimant, due to rash and negligent driving of Non-Applicant No. 1, is not in dispute. The liability imposed on Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance is also undisputed. Therefore, this Court is not entering into the factual aspects of the case and is only considering the submission made by learned counsel for appellant seeking enhancement of amount of compensation.

¶22

Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation only on the ground that learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under the head of loss of income during period of treatment. He submits that learned Claims Tribunal though in paragraph -13 of the impugned award had considered the submission of learned counsel for appellant that she was under treatment from 26.08.2017 to 20.02.2018, however, no compensation is awarded towards loss of income during that period. He submits that at the time of accident, appellant/claimant was doing work of bangle selling and earning Rs.15,000/- per month, therefore, amount of compensation under the above head be suitably awarded.

¶23

3

¶24

Learned counsel for respective respondents would oppose submission of learned counsel for appellant and supports the impugned award. They submits that learned Claims Tribunal considering the nature of injuries have awarded just and proper compensation, which does not call for any interference. They further submit that submission of learned counsel for appellant about occupation and income of claimant/appellant are not supported by any documentary evidence.

¶25

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

¶26

Perusal of record of claim case would show that claimant has filed discharge format of Action Hospital & Critical Care Center, Sohagpur, Sahdol (M.P.), wherein in the column of diagnosis, it is mentioned that fracture of humerus shaft, fracture of clavicle, fracture of scapula, fracture of right radius ulna.

¶27

From the aforementioned documents available on record it is apparent that claimant has suffered grievous injuries over her person, she suffered four fractures two of them on shoulder and two on left and right hands. Fracture injures on clavicle and scapula normally takes long time for its reunion looking to the part of body, therefore, in view of the nature of injuries suffered by appellant, she may not be able to work for couple of months and might have also taken assistance for discharging her day to day routine work. In the aforementioned facts of the case I find it appropriate to award compensation towards loss of income during laid down period for four months. It is ordered accordingly.

¶28

4

¶29

So far as rival submission made by learned counsel for parties with regard to income of claimant is concerned, true it is that claimant has not proved her income by placing admissible piece of evidence, therefore, in the aforementioned facts of the case I find it appropriate to assess her income notionally. For assessing income of person claimants or deceased, Tribunal or Courts are required to take into consideration the factors like rise in price index, place of resident, date of accident and the wages prevailing at the place where deceased or claimant was resident of. The learned Claims Tribunal could have also taken note of minium wages fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation.

¶30

In the case at hand, there is no suggesting piece of evidence to prove wages paid on the date of accident at the place of which deceased was resident of. Hence, I find it appropriate to assess the income of the claimant treating her to be labourer taking help of the minimum wages fixed by the Competent Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for that period. As per notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, the minimum wages for the period from 01.04.2017 to 30.09.2017 for unskilled laboure of C-zone area is fixed as Rs.7,800/- per month. Hence, the income of the claimant is assessed as Rs.7,800/- per month. It is ordered accordingly. Accordingly claimant will be entitled for loss of income during laid down period of Rs.7,800 x 4 = Rs.31,200/-. The claimant will also be entitled for the compensation as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal on other heads.

¶31

5

¶32

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

¶33

S.N.	Head		Amount. (Rs.)
1.	Loss of income for four months (Rs.7,800 x 4)	:	31,200.00
2.	For medical expenses	:	90,577.00
3.	For special diet and attendant charges	:	10,000.00
4.	For pain and suffering	:	20,000.00
5.	For conveyance	:	5,000.00
	Total Compensation	:	1,56,777.00

¶34

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,56,777.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶35

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

¶36

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶37

Balram

Reeta Patwa v. Rehanu Raja @ Bhai Jaan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Reeta Patwa v. Rehanu Raja @ Bhai Jaan

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

Manoj Vs Shanti Bai

Vistarni Kurre Vs Samundbai

Ayush Xess, Vs Santosh Kumar Yadav

Mahendra Kumar Sahu Vs Sanat Kumar Sahu

Smt. Basanti Singh Vs Ramsingh

Cholamandlam General Insurance Company Vs Smt. Basanti Singh