Mahendra Bhoi Vs Hiralal Chauhan

Heera lal Chauhan S/o Late Mangal Das Chauhan Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Jadamuda, Thana-Basna, Tahsil - Basna District Mahasamund (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero No. Cg04/h.A./8609)

¶11

Community Health And Development, Near Catholic Church Tatibandh Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) Registered Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero No. Cg.04/h.A./8609

¶12

3. The Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited. Through Divisional Office, M.M. Silver Plaza In Front Of Udyog Bhawan Ring Road No. 1 Raipur, Tahsil - Raipur, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero No. Cg-04/h.A./8609)

¶13

... Respondent(s)

¶14

For Appellant/Claimant	: Mr. Arjun Lal Singroul, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1	: Mr. Ayush Lall, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. Swapnil Thawaney, Advocate along with Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶16

16.01.2026

¶17

The claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation assailing the award passed by the learned 1 st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Mahasamund in Claim Case No. H-38/2020 dated 17.12.2021, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,88,550/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of injuries sustained by the claimant.

¶18

2

¶19

Mr . Arjun Lal Singroul would argue that on 26.09.2018 motorcycle of claimant was dashed by the Bolero bearing registration No. CG 04 HA 8609 and in said accident, claimant had suffered multiple injuries including fracture of tibia and femur bone of left leg. He would submit that the claimant was referred from Basna to Raipur, where he was operated and a steel rod was inserted. He would contend that the claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50% and disability certificate was issued by the medical board vide Ex. P/78.

¶20

Mr. Singroul would submit that Dr. N.K. Mandappe(AW/2) has proved the disability certificate. He would submit that the learned Tribunal assessed functional disability 25%, and considered the income of the claimant Rs. 4,000/- per month, which is at lower side. He would submit that no compensation has been granted by the learned Tribunal for attendant. It is also argued that learned Tribunal awarded compensation at lower side on conventional heads. He would pray to enhance the compensation.

¶21

On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would oppose. They would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. Mr. Thawaney, Advocate appearing for the Insurance company would submit that the disability suffered by the claimant was temporary in nature for period of 3 years, but the learned Tribunal has granted compensation for loss of income for period of 5 years. It is also argued that the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation on conventional heads. He would submit that appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶22

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

¶23

Admittedly, the claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 50%. The disability certificate was issued by the Medical Board to the extent of

¶24

3

¶25

50%. Dr. N.K. Mandappe(AW/2) proved the disability certificate. Perusal of disability certificate would reveal that the disability suffered by the claimant was temporary in nature for period of three years. The learned Tribunal considered the income of the claimant Rs. 4,000/- per month, which is at lower side. The minimum wage admissible to unskilled labourer in the month of September, 2018 was Rs. 8,140/- and the learned Tribunal should have taken that figure while computing the loss of income. The learned Tribunal assessed functional disability to the extent of 25%. On conventional heads, the learned Tribunal awarded meager amount and no compensation was granted for attendant.

¶26

Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation granted by the learned Tribunal requires recomputation and same is being revisited herein-below :-

¶27

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	Rs. 4,000/- (25%) = Rs. 1,000/-	Rs. 8,140/- (25%) = Rs. 2,035/-
		Rs. 1000 x 60 (5 years) = Rs. 60,000/-	Rs. 2,035 x 60 (5 years) = Rs. 1,22,100/-
2.	Medical Expenses	Rs. 1,13,550/-	Rs. 1,13,550/-
3.	Special diet	Rs. 5,000/-	Rs. 10,000/-
4.	Transportation	Rs. 5,000/-	Rs. 10,000/-
5.	Pain and suffering	Rs. 5,000/-	Rs. 20,000/-
6.	Attendant	NIL	Rs. 5,000/-
	TOTAL	Rs. 1,88,550/-	Rs. 2,80,650/-

¶28

4

¶29

For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of compensation of Rs. 1,88,550/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to Rs. 2,80,650 / - . Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs. 1,88,550 /-, the appellant/claimant is held entitled for an additional amount of Rs. 92,100 /- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.

¶30

Accordingly, the instant appeal is hereby partly allowed.

¶31

Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶32

$iddhant

Mahendra Bhoi v. Hiralal Chauhan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahendra Bhoi v. Hiralal Chauhan

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

Vivekanand Vidhyapeeth Vs Rajendra Kumar Sinha

Badrika Vs Pramod Kumar

Ganesh Lal Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Beedi Kamgar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ashwani Kumar Vs Yudhishathir

Jhulbai Vs Janakram