Anil Kumar Suryavanshi Vs Manish Kumar Dehari

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:17478

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 643 of 2020

¶6

1 - The National Insurance Company Limited By Branch Manager, Opposite To Main Post Office, Jagdalpur, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. Through Authorised Signatory, Manager, T.P. Hub, National Insurance Company Limited, T.P. Hub Office, Vyapar Vihar Road, Above Canara Bank, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶7

--- Appellant (s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Anil Kumar Suryawanshi S/o Gulab Suryawanshi Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Sansad Residence, Farsaguda, P.O. Bhanpuri, P.S. Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - Manish Kumar Dehari S/o Chintaram Dehari Aged About 33 Years R/o Near Sansad Residence, Farsaguda, P.O. Bhanupuri, P.S. Bhanupuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Driver / Owner), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶11

--- Respondent(s)

¶12

For Appellant (s) : Mr. BN Nande with Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Adv. For Respondent : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. No.1

¶13

MAC No. 549 of 2020

¶14

1 - Anil Kumar Suryavanshi S/o Shri Gulab Suryavanshi Aged About 26 Years R/o Near Sansad Residence , Farsaguda, Post Bhanpuri, Police

¶15

Digitally signed by KRISHNA KRISHNA KUMAR KUMAR BARVE BARVE Date: 2026.04.17 17:57:32 +0530

¶16

2

¶17

Station Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶18

--- Appellant (s)

¶19

Versus

¶20

1 - Manish Kumar Dehari S/o Chinta Ram Dehari Aged About 33 Years R/o Near Sansad Residence, Farsaguda, Post Bhanpuri, Police Station Bhanpuri, District Bastar Chhattisgarh (Driver And Owner Of Offending Vehicle), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶21

2 - The National General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager, Infront Of Head Post Office Jagdalpur , District Bastar Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh

¶22

--- Respondent(s)

¶23

For Appellant(s)	: Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate.
For Respondent No.2	: Mr. B.N. Nande with Mr. Priyanshu Gupta, Advocate.

¶24

(Single Bench)

¶25

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal

¶26

Order On Board

¶27

16/04/2026 :

¶28

Since common question of law and fact is involved for adjudication

¶29

in these appeals and also for the reason that they arise out of same accident, they are clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

¶30

MAC No. 643 of 2020 has been preferred by the appellant/ Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act, 1988’) calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the award dated 13.11.2019 passed by

¶31

3

¶32

the 2 nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) in Claim Case No.117/2018 by which liability to pay compensation of Rs.9,02,319/- has been fastened on the Insurance Company, whereas MAC No. 549 of 2020 has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal.

¶33

Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the appellant/claimant would submit that the appellant has suffered permanent disability above the knee, as his right leg has amputated and the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.9,02,319/- along with interest @ 9% per annum, which may be enhanced suitably.

¶34

On the other hand, Mr. BN Nande, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would submit that composite negligence has not been established by the claimant and, therefore, the Insurance Company is not responsible.

¶35

Countering the above submission, learned counsel for the claimant would submit that composite negligence has been established as per the statement of claimant Anil Kumar, who was pillion rider of one of the vehicles involved in the accident and, therefore, the amount of compensation deserves to be enhanced.

¶36

4

¶37

I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶38

The Claims Tribunal after considering the statement of Anil Kumar Suryavanshi, who was pillion rider in the motorcycle, has clearly reached to the conclusion that it was the case of composite negligence and, therefore, proceeded to award the compensation against the present Insurance Company and the said finding is correct based on evidence available on record. As such, the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company deserves to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶39

It is a case where right leg of the appellant/claimant has been amputated above knee and the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on the lower side, which deserves to be enhanced. As such, the claimant will be entitled for the following compensation as computed by this Court:-

¶40

Sr. No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal	the	Compensatio awarded by Court	n this
1.	Loss of earning	4,000 x 12 48,000/- x (multiplier) 8,16,000 x 80% 6,52, 800 (loss earning capacity)	= 17 = = of	4277 x 1 51,324 + 20 (40% f prospect) 71,853 x (Multiplier) 12,21,501 x (Loss of ear capacity) 9,77,200/-	2 = ,529 uture = 17 + 80% ning =

¶41

5

¶42

2.	Loss during treatment	-	4 x 4277 = 17,108
3.	Medical Bills	1,84,519/-	1,84,519/-
4.	Healthydiet	5,000/-	10,000/-
5.	Pain & suffering	20,000/-	50,000/-
6.	Assistance	5,000/-	10,000/-
7.	Transportation	5,000/-	10,000/-
8.	Future treatment	30,000/-	50,000/-
9.	Loss of amenities	-	20,000/-
10.	Artificial Limb	-	1,00,000/-
11.	Marriageprospect	-	1,00,000/-
	Grand Total	Rs.9,02,319/-	Rs.15, 28,827/-

¶43

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of ₹9,02,319/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to ₹15,28,827/- . Hence, after deducting the amount of ₹9,02,319/- , the claimant is held to be entitled to an additional amount of ₹6,26,508/- . The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% 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.

¶44

In the result, the Appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the Appeal filed by the claimant is allowed to the extent indicated above.

¶45

Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Judge

¶46

6

¶47

Barve

Anil Kumar Suryavanshi v. Manish Kumar Dehari

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Kumar Suryavanshi v. Manish Kumar Dehari

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

The New India Assurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Savita Sandilya

Bablu Dewangan Vs Vifal @ Prakash Vishwakarma

Rameshwari Markhandey Vs Smt. Dropati Markhandey

Agam Nirmalkar Vs Munnalal Patel

The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Vs Kunwar Singh Keshar

Smt. Balwanti Tirkey Vs Satish Kashyap