Sandeep Shrivastava Vs Balram Verma

¶1

1

¶2

SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI

¶3

2025:CGHC:41184

¶4

AFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 803 of 2020

¶7

Sandeep Shrivastava S/o Prataplal Shrivastava Aged About 47 Years R/o Ward No. 8, Bazaar Line Chuikhdaan, Police Station And Tehsil Chuikhdaan, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant-claimant

¶9

versus

¶10

Balram Verma S/o Ramkhilavan Verma Aged About 50 Years

¶11

Smt. Damyanti Verma W/o Balram Verma Aged About 45 Years

¶12

Ku. Sarita Verma D/o Balram Verma Aged About 22 Years All R/o Village Kohka, Supela, Police Station Supela, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. Currently Residing Near Nagendra Verma Raman Sarita School , Shanti Vihar Colony, Dagania , Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.

¶13

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Address Shivnath Complex, G.E. Road , Supela Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. (Offending Vehicle),

¶14

The New India Insurance Company Limited Branch Office At First Floor, Jeevan Bima Bhavan , Commercial Complex , Pandari, Raipur , District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant Insurer)

¶15

Radheshyam S/o Sevaram R/o House No. 23, Tata Line, Kohka , Bhilai , District Durg (CG)...(Owner (Now Dead),

¶16

2

¶17

6.1 - A. Rohit Kumar Baghel S/o Late Radheshyam Baghel Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kohka Tata Line O.P. Smriti Nagar, Police Supela, Tehsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh.

¶18

... Respondents

¶19

For Appellant : Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate. For Respondents No.4 : Ms. M. Asha, Advocate For Respondent No.5 : Ms. Jyoti Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate

¶20

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu

¶21

Order On Board

¶22

14/8/2025

¶23

Appellant-claimant has preferred this appeal feeling aggrieved by the award dated 10.1.2020 passed in Claim Case No.28/2016 by which learned Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') allowed claim application of claimant in part and awarded compensation of Rs.6,54,115/- as against total claim of Rs 60,45,000/-.

¶24

It is not in dispute that appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries in a road traffic accident dated 9.1.2012, involvement of offending motorcycle bearing registration No.CG07-LS5262, which is owned by non-applicant No.1, driven by nonapplicant No.6 and insured by non-applicant No.4, therefore, this Court is not adverting to the facts of case and only considering submissions of learned counsel for respective parties on quantum of compensation.

¶25

Learned counsel for appellant submits that one of the grounds

¶26

3

¶27

raised in this appeal is that learned Claims Tribunal has not considered that appellant-claimant was working as Shiksha Karmi on the date of accident in absence of specific evidence in this regard and assessed monthly income of claimant as Rs.4500/- treating him to be an unskilled labourer. Appellant has filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with this appeal annexing pay slip of appellant for the month of December, 2011, with a prayer to take the same on record. He next contended that due to grievous injuries sustained in accident, appellant could not able to work for 16 months, he has availed medical leave and this aspect has not been considered by learned Claims Tribunal in proper manner while computing the compensation for loss of income during period of treatment.

¶28

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respective respondents would oppose the submission of learned counsel for appellant and submit that during proceedings before Claims Tribunal, claimant was having ample opportunity to produce documents in support of his claim but he failed to do so and even in application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC appellant failed to explain as to why pay slip was not filed by him in the Claims Tribunal. They further contended that amount of compensation assessed and awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is adequate one and

¶29

4

¶30

does not call for any interference.

¶31

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

¶32

Perusal of record would show that claimant filed an application seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.60,45,000/- for permanent disability consequently suffered on account of motor vehicular accident that took place on 9.1.2012, pleading that on the date of accident, he is government servant working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-II. However, in support thereof, appellant has not produced any documentary evidence nor examined any person in this regard. Learned Claims Tribunal considering that appellant claimant did not produce any oral or documentary evidence to prove that he is working as Shiksha Karmi Grade-2, thereby failed to prove his occupation and income therefore, proceeded to assess his income on notional basis by treating him to be an unskilled worker. Under these circumstances, I am of the view that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any mistake in assessing income of appellant notionally.

¶33

However, along with this appeal, appellant moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC with a prayer to take the documents annexed therewith, including pay slip of appellant for the month of December 2011, on record. Reason for moving said application is that though said documents

¶34

5

¶35

were handed over to the counsel engaged by him before the Claims Tribunal, but for the reasons best known to the counsel, the same could not be produced before the Claims Tribunal and said error came to notice after going through the impugned award, as submitted by learned counsel for appellant herein. It is further mentioned that pay slip of appellant is essential for correct assessment of monthly income of appellant and if the same is not taken on record, it will cause irreparable loss to appellant.

¶36

There cannot be any dispute that the Act of 1988 is a beneficial and welfare piece of legislation for providing quick and substantial relief to the claimants, who are the victims of unfortunate accident for no fault of theirs. Normally the claimants are not interested in proceeding with their claim in such a manner which jeopardized their rights and contentions. True it is that the documents annexed with application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC were not produced before learned Claims Tribunal for the reasons mentioned in the application and the same have now been produced before this Court. The documents sought to be brought on record by appellant are appointment letter, joining letter and salary slip of appellant-claimant issued by the Block Education Officer, Chhuikhadan.

¶37

Under the Act of 1988 it is also duty of the Court to satisfy that

¶38

6

¶39

the compensation to be awarded to claimant (s) is just and fair. In these circumstances and facts of case, the documents sought to be produced as additional evidence are important documents enabling the Claims Tribunal to award just compensation. In case of Rajo Devi and ors vs Manjeet Kaur and ors , reported in MANU/SC/0741/2025 , Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:-

¶40

“17….It must be kept in mind that the provision of providing compensation to the injured/dependants in accident cases under Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is a beneficial provision to enhance social justice. Accordingly, the rigours of procedure cannot be allowed to defeat its purpose as the trial in such cases is summary in nature…..

¶41

Hence, this Court is of the considered opinion that in order to award just compensation to appellant, it would be proper to grant him an opportunity, ignoring rigors of Order 41 Rule 27 CPC.

¶42

Accordingly, I.A. No.2/2020 is allowed and the documents filed along with this application, which are appointment letter, joining letter and salary slip of appellant-claimant issued by the Block Education Officer, Chhuikhadan, are taken on record.

¶43

7

¶44

Since this Court has allowed the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, therefore, the matter is required to be remanded back to the Claims Tribunal only in respect of assessment of income of claimant for the purpose of computing and awarding just compensation.

¶45

Accordingly, the impugned award is hereby set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Claims Tribunal to assess income of appellant afresh in accordance with law after considering the additional documents produced by appellantclaimant and after providing opportunity to the respective parties to amend pleadings and adduce evidence.

¶46

The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 23.09.2025. Record of the case be sent back forthwith.

¶47

Sd/(Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge

¶48

roshan/

Sandeep Shrivastava v. Balram Verma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sandeep Shrivastava v. Balram Verma

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

Yamini Patel Vs Pilluram Sahu

Smt. Nileshwari Verma Vs Dushyant Sahu

Shriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Yamini Patel

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Gaindlal

National Insurance Company Limited Vs Omkar Prasad Thakur

Janki Dhruv Vs Amit Kumar Ratre