Jagdish Prasad Vs Ankita Khalkho

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by NADIM MOHLE

¶3

2025:CGHC:55855

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT of CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 881 of 2024

¶7

Jagdish Prasad, S/o Balgovind, Aged About 65 Years R/o Village Goutiyapara, Lalpur, P.S. Manendragarh, District- Manendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur ( C.G.).

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

1 - Ankita Khalkho, D/o Isidor Khalkho, Aged About 23 Years R/o- Ward No. 15, Amakherwa, Manendragarh, Police Station Manendragarh, DistrictManendragarh- Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.) (Driver of offending Vehicle CG16/cm-4418).

¶11

2 - Deepak Khalkho, S/o Isidro Khlkho, Resident of Ward No. 15, Amakherwa, Manendragarh, District- Manendragrah- Chirmiri- Bharatpur (C.G.).(Owner of offending Vehicle CG-16/cm-4418).

¶12

3- Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Through- Branch Manager, Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, Second Floor, Winwe Centre, South Tukoganj, Indore (M.P.) (Insurer of offending Vehicle CG-16/CM-4418).

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant	:Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati,Advocate
For Respondents No.1 & 2	:None
For Respondent No.3	:Mr. Suraj Patel, Advocate, holding the
	brief of Mr. Shekhar Rao Saheb Amin, Advocate

¶15

2

¶16

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶17

Judgment on Board

¶18

17/11/2025

¶19

This appeal has been preferred by the claimant/injured for enhancement of compensation against award passed by the learned I st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manendragarh, District Koriya, in Claim Case No.07/2023, dated 02.04.2024, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed award to the tune of Rs. 35,000/- only with interest @ 9 % per annum on account of injuries sustained by Jagdish Prasad/ claimant.

¶20

Mr. Gulati would argue that on 24.06.2022, when the claimant was returning home on his motorcycle at about 5.30 pm, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Scorpio bearing registration No. CG-16-CM-4418, by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle of the appellant/injured, consequently, he and his wife sustained injuries. He would contend that the wife of the deceased succumbed to the injuries whereas, the claimant sustained serious injuries over fingers of right leg and knee of his right leg. He would contend that he was hospitalized and the treating Doctor detected fracture of two fingers & knee bone of right leg; thereafter the injured filed a claim case and claimed Rs. 18 lakh.

¶21

Mr. Gulati would contend that the learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.3,000/- against medical expenses incurred in treatment and on other conventional heads, the learned Tribunal has awarded a lump-sum amount of Rs. 20,000. He would fairly submit that the treating Doctor has not been examined as the claimant did not submit disability certificate but the learned Tribunal ought to have awarded just and proper compensation; thus, he would pray to enhance the compensation.

¶22

3

¶23

On the other hand, Mr. Suraj Patel, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 would submit that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation and the claimant failed to examine the treating Doctor; thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

I have heard learned Counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶25

Admittedly, the driver of the offending vehicle dashed the motorcycle of the claimant, resultantly, he & his wife sustained grievous injuries and the wife of the deceased succumbed to the injuries whereas claimant sustained fracture injuries over two fingers of the right leg and knee. He was hospitalized for one day and he was advised to take rest. Though the claimant failed to examine the treating Doctor but the Insurance Company has not denied the injuries sustained by the claimant. The learned Tribunal rightly awarded Rs.3,000 for medical expenses against medical bills submitted by claimant. The learned Tribunal fairly awarded Rs.12,000/- for loss of earning as claimant remained hospitalized for one day. Further he was treated as an unskilled labourer by the tribunal as appellant Court not prove his occupation by leading evidence.

¶26

The learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for loss of amenities, pain and suffering, special diet and conveyance, which appears to be at lower side. Looking to the injuries sustained by the claimant which have not been disputed by the Insurance Company in the opinion of this Court, the claimant would be entitled to get an additional sum of Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering, special diet and loss of amenities; thus, the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal is revisited as under:-

¶27

Sl. No.	Heads	Compensation	Compensation
		granted by the	granted by this

¶28

4

¶29

		Tribunal	Court
1.	Loss of earning for one month	Rs. 12,000/-	Rs. 12,000/-
2.	Medical expenses	Rs. 3,000 /-	Rs. 3,000/-
3.	Loss of amenities, pain and suffering, special diet and	Rs.20,000/-	Rs.20,000 + 20,000/-
	conveyance
4.	Total	Rs.35,000/-	Rs.55,000
	Final Compensation	55,000- 35,000	Rs. 20,000/-

¶30

In view of the above calculation, the claimant is entitled to get enhanced compensation Rs.20,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount Rs.20,000/- to the claimant with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of application till its realization within a period of 60 days.

¶31

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part .

¶32

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶33

JUDGE

¶34

Nadim

Jagdish Prasad v. Ankita Khalkho

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagdish Prasad v. Ankita Khalkho

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

Smt. Buchki Baghel Vs Jogaram Kodopi

Mayavati Gaharvariya Vs Rajendra Kumar Dubey

Sundri Bai Pradhan Vs Anuret Dhnuhar Urf Anuresh Kumar

Aarti Vs Bhagwan Singh

Shivprasad Vs Dinesh Lanjhiyana

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs Lalbaran