Arvind Barmaiya Vs Parmeshwar Patel

1 - Parmeshwar Patel Son of Ishwar Patel Aged About 26 Years R/o Kera Road Janjgir, At Present R/o Village Pakariya, P.S. Urga, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶11

2 - Ram Vilas Jaiswal Son of Kriparam Jaiswal Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Pali, P.S. And Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶12

3 - National Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Branch office, National Insurance Company Limited, Address - 13, Meenu Complex, Kosabadi, Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr. Pravin Dhurandhar, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Sanjay Patel, Advocate

¶15

Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶16

Order on Board

¶17

12/01/2026

¶18

The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation assailing the award dated 05.07.2019 passed in Claim Case No. 59/2016 by learned IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Korba, whereby the learned Tribunal has

¶19

2

¶20

granted compensation to the tune of Rs.3,51,917/- with interest @ 4 % per annum on account of injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶21

Mr. Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that claimant sustained injuries as the driver of the offending tractor bearing registration No.CG-11-A-8320 dashed him by driving it rashly and negligently on 12.01.2016. He would further submit that the claimant suffered fracture of left hand and remained hospitalized for considerable period. He would further submit that disability certificate to the extent of 40 % was issued vide Ex.P/9 by the Medical Board in favour of the claimant. He would contend that learned Tribunal has assessed functional disability to the extent of 16 %.

¶22

Mr. Dhurandhar would contend that the learned Tribunal assessed income of the claimant Rs. 5,000/- which is at lower side as the minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2016 was Rs. 5,860/-. He would further contend that the claimant lost vision of left eye in said accident and placed sufficient documents but the learned Tribunal discarded those documents. He would submit that learned Tribunal has awarded meager amount on conventional heads; thus, he would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶23

On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay Patel, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. He would further submit that the claimant met with an accident and suffered injuries on 12.01.2016, but claimant was examined by an eye specialist on 14.12.2016 therefore, the learned tribunal rightly held that there was no nexus between the loss of vision and accident. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has granted adequate compensation on other heads; thus, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶24

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

¶25

3

¶26

The claimant made an attempt to establish that he lost vision of left eye on account of injuries sustained by him in the accident dated 12.01.2016, but from perusal of MLC report (Ex.P/3), it is apparent that there is no mention of any injury over eyes in said document. In discharge summery part of Ex.P/154, dated 10.02.2016, there is no whisper with regard to the loss of vision.

¶27

The claimant was examined first time by an eye specialist on 14.12.2016 and it was found that he has lost vision of left eye.

¶28

The claimant could not prove the fact that there was any nexus between loss of vision and accident, therefore, the learned Tribunal rightly discarded contention made by the claimant.

¶29

With regard to the income of the deceased, the learned Tribunal should have assessed income of the claimant applying minimum wages matrix. The minimum wages admissible to an unskilled labourer in the month of January, 2016 was Rs. 5,860/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while assessing the income.

¶30

The learned Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.8,000/- for attendant. Since, the claimant remained in bed for a period of 3 months, therefore, the figure arrived at by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration and same is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-. The learned Tribunal has further awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering, this figure also requires reconsideration and enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. The learned Tribunal granted compensation to the claimant for loss of earnings during the period of hospitalization at the rate of Rs. 5,000 per month for three months, i.e. Rs. 15,000 & this figure requires reconsideration, as the minimum wage at the relevant time was Rs. 5,860 per month. Accordingly, the loss of earnings for three months should be Rs. 5,860 × 3 = Rs. 17,580.

¶31

4

¶32

The learned Tribunal has granted interest at the rate of 4% per annum. Though the grant of interest is discretionary, but the learned Tribunal and Courts are required to award a reasonable rate of interest.

¶33

Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, contemplates a proper and reasonable rate of interest @ 6% per annum; thus, interest rate is modified to 6% per annum.

¶34

Taking into consideration above discussed facts, the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration and same is recomputed as under:-

¶35

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Annual Income	5,000 × 12 = 60,000;	5,860×12 = 70,320
2.	Future prospects	40% = 3,840	40% = 4,500.48
3.	functional disability	16% = 9,600	16% = 11,251.20
		Total = 9,600 +3,840 = 13,440	11,251.20 + 4,500.48= 15,751.68
4.	Multiplier (16)	13,440 × 16 = 2,15,040	15,751.68 × 16 = 2,52,026.88
5.	Pain and suffering	Rs. 20,000/-	Rs. 30,000/-
6.	Loss of income during hospitalization period	5,000 × 3 = 15,000	5,860 × 3 = 17,580
7.	Transportation expenses	Rs. 10,000/-	Rs. 10,000/-
8.	Medical expenses	Rs. 73,877/-	Rs. 73,877/-
9.	Attendant charges	Rs. 8,000/-	Rs. 20,000/-

¶36

5

¶37

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
10.	Special Diet	Rs.10,000/-	Rs.10,000/-
	Total	Rs. 3,51,917/-	Rs. 4,13,483.88/-
	Final compensation	Rs. 4,13,483.88- Rs. 3,51,917/-	= 61,566.88 rounded off = 61,567/-

¶38

In view of the above calculation, the claimant/appellant shall be entitled to an additional sum of 61,567/-₹ The insurance company is directed to pay the enhanced compensation ₹61,567/- with interest @ 6% per annum to the appellant/claimant within a period of 60 days. Rest of the terms and conditions of the award shall remain intact. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

Rakesh Mohan Pandey

¶41

JUDGE

¶42

Nadim

Arvind Barmaiya v. Parmeshwar Patel

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Barmaiya v. Parmeshwar Patel

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

Rajesh Kumar Jangde Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Vikas Tandon

Mohit Singhania Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sambhu Korram Vs Deleted Union of India as Per Honble Court Order Dt. 25/09/17

Smt. Tileshwari Bai Vs Arun Kumar @ Pintu

Assistant Engineer and Others Vs Daulatram Sahu and Another