Durga Prasad Sahu Vs Ravi Shankar Sahu

Ravi Shankar Sahu S/o Late Shyam Bihari Sahu, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Ward No.6 Near Shiv Mandir Yadav Nager Tifra Thana Sirgitti District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh...............................Driver Cum Owner Of The Offending Motor Cycle No. CG 10/Z/5167).

¶12

Branch Manager, ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office- Office No. So- 52^nd Floor- V R Plaza Link Road Vidya Nager Bilaspur Chhattisgarh..........................Insurer Of The Offending Motor Cycle No. C G 10/Z/5167.

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

For Appellant :- Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 :- Animesh Pathak, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. P. Acharya, Advocate.

¶15

SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board

¶16

02.04.2026

¶17

Heard on I.A. No.1, application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

¶18

On due consideration, application is allowed and the delay of 402

¶19

days in fining the instant appeal is condoned.

¶20

2

¶21

MAC No. 440 of 2019

¶22

With the consent of parties, the matter is heard finally.

¶23

This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) has been preferred by the appellant/injured claimant seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 09.10.2017 passed by the IX^th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 123/2016 whereby learned Claims Tribunal has allowed the claimant’s application and awarded a sum of 2,06,000/-₹ as compensation along with interest.

¶24

Mr. A.L. Singroul, learned counsel for the claimants, would submit that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding less amount of compensation in the facts of the present cases. He would also submit that the Claims Tribunal has not calculated the income of the appellant and future prospect as well as multiplier has not been used by the Claims Tribunal while granting compensation and, therefore, the appeal filed by the claimants be allowed and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced.

¶25

Mr. Animesh Pathak, learned counsel for the Insurance Company, would submit oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the claimants and submit that the amount of compensation awarded by

¶26

3

¶27

MAC No. 440 of 2019

¶28

the Claims Tribunal is just and proper which does not call for any interference.

¶29

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and gone through the records meticulously.

¶30

Learned Claims Tribunal has not assessed the income of claimant and ₹60,000/-; 10,000/- awarded under the heads of disability and₹ transportation and in total 2,06,000/- has been awarded by the₹ Claims Tribunal to the claimant. As such, the compensation amount is liable to be enhanced and amount is liable to the granted under the other heads.

¶31

Thus, in light of the aforesaid discussion this Court is computing the compensation as below:-

¶32

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by the Tribunal	Compensation awarded by this Court
1.	Income	NIL	₹6,000 x 12 = 72,000/- ₹
2.	Future Prospect	NIL	(+)25% = 18,000/- ₹ total = 90,000/- ₹
3.	Multiplier	NIL	(x)14 = 12,60,000/- ₹
4.	Disability	40% = 60,000/- ₹	40% =5,04,000/-
5.	Transporting Expenses	10,000/- ₹	10,000/- ₹
6.	Loss of Income during the treatment	NIL	18,000/- ₹
7.	Pain & suffering	NIL	25,000/- ₹
8.	Special Diet	NIL	5,000/- ₹

¶33

4

¶34

MAC No. 440 of 2019

¶35

9.	Attendant	NIL	5,000/- ₹
10.	Mental Agony	NIL	5,000/- ₹
11.	Medical Expenses	1,36,000/- ₹	1,36,000/- ₹
12.	Amenities	NIL	5,000/- ₹
	Total	2,06,000/ ₹ -	7,13,000 ₹ /-

¶36

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of

¶37

₹2,06,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹7,13,000/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹2,06,000/- , the appellant/claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹5,07,000/- . The concerned respondent is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact.

¶38

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

¶39

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶40

Ankit

¶41

Sd/-

Durga Prasad Sahu v. Ravi Shankar Sahu

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga Prasad Sahu v. Ravi Shankar Sahu

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

Ram Kuamr Sharma Vs Gyan Singh Chandra

Awadh Ram Sahu (Died) Through Lrs Vs Lakhan Lal Meshram

Shailesh Gupta Vs Ravindra Kumar Naag

Smt. Chandravati Patel Vs Vidyadhar Nayak

Pawan Kumar Markandey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ramsan Vs Branch Manager Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd.