Vivek Sharma Vs Hitesh Sharma

Hitesh Sharma S/o Sunil Sharma Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Ghodari, Police Station And Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh)...........(Driver Of Car Vehicle No. Cg10 Ax 9350)

¶11

Shubham Chandrakar S/o Tikam Lal Chandrakar, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Lingadih Bilaspur, Police Station And Tahsil Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh).............(Owner Of Car Vehicle No. Cg-10 Ax 9350)

¶12

Branch Manager, Megma H.D.I. General Insurance Company Ltd. 5th Floor, Rajbandha Ground, Dainik Bhaskar Complex, Plot No. 01, Block No. 09 Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)............... (Insurance Company Of Car Vehicle No. Cg-10 Ax 9350)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant :	Mr. Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 :	Ms. Harneet Kaur, Advocate on behalf
	of Mr. Sourabh Sharma, Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Judgment On Board

¶17

6.2.2026

¶18

2

¶19

1) Claimant-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988') for enhancement of the compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 28.3.2023 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Mahasamund in Claim Case No. H-81/2022, whereby learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 4,06,770/- with interest @ 6% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the appellant.

¶20

2) The case in brief is that on 18.2.2021 at about 7:30 pm, claimant /appellant herein was going on his motorcycle from Fingeshwar to Mahasamund and when he reached Circuit House, Labhrakhurd, the offending vehicle – Car bearing registration No. CG-10-AX9350 being driven in rash and negligent manner dashed the motorcycle. In the accident, claimant sustained serious injuries including multiple fractures over jaw and left shoulder.

¶21

3) Appellant himself had filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.27,00,000/- and pleaded that he was running a mobile shop and was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Learned Tribunal framed issues ; parties led evidence and thereafter award impugned was passed.

¶22

4) Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits although claimant did not suffered permanent disability but he sustained severe injuries and was operated and iron plates were inserted in

¶23

3

¶24

jaw and left shoulder. He further submits that treating doctor Dr. Manjeet Singh (AW/2) has proved the seriousness of injuries and also exhibited medical documents but learned Tribunal has awarded meager amounts under conventional heads. He prays to modify the award accordingly.

¶25

5) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for Insurance Company submits that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal to the claimant cannot be said to be on lower side, rather it is just and proper in the given facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any interference.

¶26

6) I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, considered their rival submissions and perused the records with utmost circumspection.

¶27

7) A careful perusal of record would reveal that treating doctor Dr. Manjeet Singh (AW/2) stated that he initially found fractures over jaw and left clavicle bone. He further stated that there were lacerated wounds over lips and face and fractures over right maxilla, zygomatic and mandible bones. He also stated that appellant remained hospitalized from 18.2.201 till 1.3.2021 and again from 8.6.2021 till 9.6.2021. He exhibited medical documents including bills and prescriptions (Ex. P-7 to P-47).

¶28

8) It appears that learned Tribunal honored the medical bills to the tune of Rs. 3,48,770/- and granted adequate sums towards special

¶29

4

¶30

diet, attendant charges and transportation. However, while computing loss of earning, learned Tribunal has assessed the notional monthly income of the claimant to be Rs. 6,000/- per month which is certainly on the lower side. The minimum wages payable to an unskilled laborer in February, 2021 was Rs. 9,200/and learned Tribunal ought to have taken this figure into account while computing loss of earning. Also, learned Tribunal failed to grant separate compensation towards future medical treatment and loss of amenities.

¶31

9) Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion this Court is computing

¶32

the compensation as below:

¶33

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Loss of earning (three months)	Rs. 18,000/- (@ Rs. 6,000 pm)	Rs. 27,600/- (@ Rs. 9,200 pm)
2.	Medical bills	Rs. 3,48,770/-	Rs. 3,48,770/-
3.	Pain and suffering	Rs. 10,000/-	Rs. 50,000/-
4.	Special Diet	Rs. 10,000/-	Rs. 10,000/-
5.	Attendant	Rs. 10,000/-	Rs. 10,000/-
6.	Transportation	Rs. 10,000/-	Rs. 10,000/-
7.	Future Medical Expenses	NIL	Rs. 20,000/-
8.	Loss of Amenities	NIL	Rs. 30,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 4,06,770/-	Rs. 5,06,370/-

¶34

5

¶35

10) Accordingly, the amount of compensation of Rs.4,06,770/awarded by the learned Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.5,06,370/-. Hence, the appellants are entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 99,600/- .The Insurance Company is directed to make payment of additional compensation assessed herein-above within period of 60 days. Rest of the terms of the award shall remain intact.

¶36

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

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) JUDGE

¶39

A j i n k y a

Vivek Sharma v. Hitesh Sharma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Sharma v. Hitesh Sharma

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

Ashok Sahu Vs Himanshu Sharma

Rajaram Yadav Vs Sanjay sharma

Chandrashekhar Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ratna Bai Vs Gajanand (Died) through Lrs Narayan Patel

Ajay Kumar Nirmalkar Vs Mahadev Ajgalle

Tata A.I.G. General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Sushma Gilhare