Rajkumar Tengwar Vs Jagmohan Pradhan

1 - Jagmohan Pradhan, S/o Girja Shankar Pradhan, Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Bhendimuda, Ward No. 08, P.S. - Ratanpur, District- Bilaspur (C.G.) ----(Driver And Owner Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No.C.G. 10 Av-9951)

¶10

2 - Branch Manager, H.D.F.C. Irgo General Insurance Company Ltd. Branch OfficeFirst Floor, K.H.No. 730/2, D-2 P.H. No. 22, Ward No. 30, Rani Laxmi Nagar, Near Rama Magneto Mall P.S. Tarbahar, Bilaspur, Tehsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ---(Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Motorcycle Bearing Registration No. C.G. 10 Av-9951)

¶11

... Respondents

¶12

For Appellant/Claimant	: Mr. Pawan Kumar Kashyap, Advocate
For Respondent No.3	: Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Adv.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶14

04.11.2025

¶15

1. Heard.

¶16

1. The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the learned 6^th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Claim Case No.494/2021 dated 29.11.2023 whereby, the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.2,00,400/- with

¶17

-2-

¶18

interest @ 9% per annum on account of injury sustained by the claimant.

¶19

1. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit that the on 20.02.2020, the claimant was proceeding towards Village Madai on his motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.10EC/1381 along with his wife and daughter but near Village Bhadi, Rest House, the driver of the offending motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.10 AV/9951 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed his motorcycle, consequently, he fell down and sustained grievous injuries. He would contend that the claimant remained hospitalized at Chhattisgarh Medical Institute of Sciences, Bilaspur for a considerable period. He would further contend that the learned Tribunal assessed the notional monthly income of claimant Rs.7,600/- whereas, minimum wages payable to unskilled labourer in the month of February, 2020 was Rs.8,600/-. He would fairly submit that on other conventional heads, learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. It is argued that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for future medical expenses and thus, he would pray to modify the award passed by the learned Tribunal accordingly.

¶20

1. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Kashyap. He would submit that the claimant failed to adduce evidence to prove his income and therefore, learned Tribunal assessed it Rs.7,600/per month. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has passed

¶21

-3-

¶22

just and proper compensation. He would lastly submit that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶23

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

¶24

1. The award passed by the learned Tribunal would show that a sum of Rs.45,000/- has been granted towards medical expenses; Rs.50,000/for pain and suffering; Rs.25,000/- for special diet; Rs.25,000/- for conveyance; Rs.30,400/- for loss of earing and Rs.25,000/- for attendant.

¶25

1. Learned Tribunal has assessed notional income of the claimant Rs.7,600/-, whereas, the admissible minimum wages to unskilled labourer in the month of February, 2020 was Rs.8,600/-, therefore, the compensation amount for loss of earning requires reconsideration.

¶26

1. As the claimant failed to examine the seriousness of injuries by examining the treating doctor, therefore, in my opinion, the learned Tribunal has rightly not granted any compensation for future medical expenses. Accordingly, the prayer with regard to compensation for future medical expenses is hereby rejected.

¶27

1. As per the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal, the claimant could not work for a period of four months. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to get loss of earning for four months and it would be Rs.8,600/x 4 = Rs.34,400/-. The appellant/claimant shall be entitled for an

¶28

-4-

¶29

additional sum of Rs.4,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of accident till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions shall remain intact.

¶30

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

¶31

Sd/-

¶32

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶33

Rekha

Rajkumar Tengwar v. Jagmohan Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajkumar Tengwar v. Jagmohan Pradhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Magma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Neelima Mishra

Subodh Mishra, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pankaj Kumar Ambast Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Nafeeza Khan Vs Dularam Bareth

Kavita Vs Fuleshwar Rajwade

Katwaru Ram Vs Fuleshwar Rajwade