Partly allowed

Arjun Sethiya v. Vijay CHAndak

Chhattisgarh HC14 Sept 2026MAC/151/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act challenging a Claims Tribunal award, the High Court enhanced compensation by Rs. 20,000 covering diet, attendant, and transportation expenses for 16 days of hospitalization not originally awarded.

What did the court decide?

Awarded an additional Rs. 20,000 towards diet, attendant, and transportation expenses carrying interest from filing date.

Arjun Sethiya Vs Vijay CHAndak — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

CGHC010015532024

2026:CGHC:40277

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

MAC No. 151 of 2024

¶7

1 - Arjun Sethiya S/o. Late Anantram Sethiya, Aged About 44 Years (Now), R/o Kotriyabhata Village Dimarapal Farasra Panchayat Post Jaibel P.S. Karpawand District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Malati Sethiya W/o Arjun Sethiya Aged About 42 Years (Now), R/o Kotriyabhata Village Dimarapal Farasra Panchayat Post Jaibel P.S. Karpawand District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

1 - Vijay Chandak S/o Premraj Chandak R/o House No. 27/k, Jain Mandir Road, Sadar Ward Pratapgunjpara Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh ( Driver Of The Vehicle)

¶12

2 - Premraj Chandak S/o. Kasturachand Chandak R/o. House No. 27/k, Jain Mandir Road, Sadar Ward, Pratapgunjpara, Jagdalpur District Bastar Chhattisgarh.

¶13

3 - The, Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. , Through Branch Manager, Shop No. 516, Fifth Floor, National Corporate Park, Commercial Complex, G.E. Raod, Raipur District Chhattisgarh ( Insurer ),

¶14

... Respondents

¶15

For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocate.

¶16

¶17

For Respondent Nos. 1 : Mr. Pravesh Sahu, counsel on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. & 2

¶18

For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Mansi Bandey, Advocate.

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board

¶20

(15.09.2026)

¶21

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellants/claimants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 05.10.2023, passed in Claim Case No.227/2021, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.16,81,463/- as compensation for the death of Late Damru Sethiya, who died in a road accident which took place on 11.03.2021.

¶22

Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the accident occurred on 11.03.2021 and the deceased succumbed to the injuries after 16 days, on 27.03.2021, during which period he remained under treatment in hospital. It was contended that although the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,99,663/towards medical expenses, it has failed to award any amount towards diet, attendant charges and transportation expenses incurred during the period of treatment and hospitalization. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that having regard to the prolonged treatment of the deceased for 16 days between the date of accident and the date of death, a reasonable amount ought to have been awarded under the aforesaid heads as well.

¶23

Ms. Mansi Bandey, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company supporting the impugned award submits

¶24

¶25

that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation, which needs no interference by this Court.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellants and respondent No.3 & perused the record of the Tribunal, including award impugned.

¶27

Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the accident occurred on 11.03.2021 and the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 27.03.2021, i.e., after 16 days, during which period he remained under treatment. The learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the medical bill (Ex.A-12) and other medicine bills (Ex.A-13 to 36), has awarded a sum of Rs.1,99,663/- towards medical expenses; however, no amount has been awarded towards diet, attendant charges and transportation expenses. Considering the period of treatment of the deceased for 16 days, this Court is of the considered view that a consolidated sum of Rs.20,000/- towards diet, attendant and transportation expenses would be just and reasonable. Accordingly, an additional amount of Rs.20,000/- is awarded under the aforesaid heads.

¶28

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed . The claimants/appellants shall be entitled to get Rs. 20,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact.

¶29

The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may

¶30

¶31

be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAOPekde PEKDE Date: 2026.09.16 13:08:01 +0530

¶34

(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge

Arjun Sethiya v. Vijay CHAndak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arjun Sethiya v. Vijay CHAndak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases