Priyanshu Kumari (Minor) Vs Dhirendra Singh

¶1

-1-

¶2

2026:CGHC:2650

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

MAC No. 937 of 2023

¶6

1 - Surendra Kumar (Minor) D/o Jaitkumar Yadav, Aged About 9 Years R/o Village Bhadrapara, Batra, Tahsil And Police Station Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. Through Next Friend - Jaitkumar Yadav S/o Samar Singh Yadav, R/o Village Bhadrapara, Batra, Tahsil And Police Station Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶7

--- Appellant

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - Dhirendra Singh S/o Virendra Singh, Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Ganeshpura Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.) Presently R/o Camp Chaitma, Dilip Buildcon Company, Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. Driver Of Insured Vehicle No. M.P. H. 0611.

¶10

2 - Dilip Buildcon Company, Bengaluru (Karnataka) Through Power Of Attorney Holder-Praveen Kumar Singh, S/o Devendra Singh Aged About 41 Years, R/o E-10, Bandih Alias Mithailiya, Post Mithailiya, Amhut Basti, Presently R/o Dilip Buildcon Company Chaitma, Tahsil Pali, District Korba Chhattisgarh. Owner Of Vehicle No. M.P. 39 H. 0611.

¶11

3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Neear Kosabadi Chowk, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh Insurer Of Vehicle No. M.P. H. 0611.

¶12

--- Respondent(s)

¶13

MAC No. 832 of 2023

¶14

1 - Priyanshu Kumari (Minor) D/o Jaitkumar Yadav Aged About 10 Years R/o Village Bhadrapara, Batra, Tahsil And Police Station - Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh Through Next Friend - Jaitkumar Yadav S/o Samar Singh Yadav, R/o Village Bhadrapara, Batra, Tahsil And Police Station - Pali, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. (Claimant) --- Appellant

¶15

Versus

¶16

1 - Dhirendra Singh S/o Virendra Singh, Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 10, Ganeshpura Lahar, District Bhind (M.P.) Presently R/o Camp Chaitma, Dilip Buildcon Company, Tahsil Pali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶17

2 - Dilip Buildcon Company, Bengaluru (Karnataka) Through Power Of Attorney Holder - Praveen Kumar Singh, S/o Devendra Singh, Aged About 41 Years, R/o E-10, Bandih Alias Mithailiya, Post Mithailiya, Amhut Basti, Presently R/o Dilip Buildcon Company Chaitma,, Tahsil Pali, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh

¶18

3 - National Insurance Company Limited, Through Branch Manager, Near Kosabadi Chowk, Korba, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents

¶19

... Respondents

¶20

For Appellants/Claimants : Mr. Anshul Tiwari, Advocate

¶21

-2-

¶22

For respondent No.3/Insurance : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate

¶23

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶24

16.01.2026

¶25

1. Heard.

¶26

1. In MAC No.937 of 2023, the claimant has challenged the award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), in Claim Case No.46 of 2022 dated 23.02.2023 whereby, compensation of Rs.3,32,018/- with interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded on account of injuries sustained by the minor claimant namely Surendra Kumar.

¶27

1. In MAC No.832 of 2023, the claimant has challenged the award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), in Claim Case No.44 of 2022 dated 23.02.2023 whereby, compensation of Rs.1,79,610/- with interest @ 7% per annum has been awarded on account of injuries sustained by the minor claimant namely Priyanshu Kumari.

¶28

1. The facts in brief are that on 06.06.2021 at around 7:30 a.m. when the claimants as pillion riders were going from Bhadrapara Batra to Chaitma on a motorcycle, at the same time, the trailer bearing registration No.MP39/H-0611 dashed the motorbike, resultantly, both the claimants sustained injuries.

¶29

1. The claimant namely Surendra Kumar, aged about 9 years filed a Claim

¶30

-3-

¶31

Case No.46/2022, wherein, he claimed a sum of Rs.14,15,000/- whereas claimant namely Priyanshu Kumari, aged about 10 years filed a Claim Case No.44/2022 wherein she claimed a sum of Rs.14,15,000/-.

¶32

1. The driver and owner of the offending vehicle as well as the Insurance Company filed reply in both the claim cases and denied averments made in claim petitions. They pleaded that the rider of the motorbike was negligent. Further, a plea was taken by the Insurance Company that the driver of the bike did not have valid and effective driving licence. Learned Tribunal framed issues in both the claim petitions; parties led evidence and thereafter, awards were passed.

¶33

1. Mr. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/claimants would argue that in the accident occurred on 06.06.2021, both the claimants sustained serious injuries. He would submit that in Claim Case No.46 of 2022, the parents of the claimants spent Rs.2,66,908/- in treatment, whereas, in Claim Case No.44 of 2022, they spent Rs.1,13,100/-. He would further submit that the learned Tribunal has not granted just and proper compensation on conventional head and thus, he would pray to enhance the compensation accordingly.

¶34

1. On the other hand, Mr. Tulsyan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Tiwari. He would submit that the claimants failed to examine the treating doctor to prove seriousness of injuries. He would further submit

¶35

-4-

¶36

that the injuries sustained by the claimants were simple in nature. It is also argued that the learned Tribunal has honoured the medical bills submitted by the claimants. Mr. Tulsyan would contend that the learned Tribunal has granted just compensation on conventional heads. He would further contend that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶37

1. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection.

¶38

1. A perusal of the record including the medical documents would reveal that the injuries sustained by the claimants were simple in nature. The claimants remained hospitalized for a week. They placed on record medical bills to the tune of Rs.2,66,908/- and Rs.1,13,100/- and those bills were duly honoured by the learned Tribunal.

¶39

1. In MAC No.937 of 2023, learned Tribunal granted compensation as

¶40

under :

¶41

Sr.No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal
1.	For medical expenses	Rs. 2,66,908/-
2.	For loss of income of parents	Rs.15,110/-
3.	For pain and suffering	Rs. 20,000/-
4.	For special diet	Rs.10,000/-
5.	For conveyance	Rs.10,000/-
6.	For miscellaneous	Rs.10,000/-

¶42

-5-

¶43

	expenditure
7.	Total	Rs. 3,32,018/-

¶44

In MAC No.832 of 2023, learned Tribunal has granted compensation as

¶45

under :

¶46

Sr.No.	Heads	Compensation awarded by Tribunal
1.	For medical expenses	Rs. 1,13,100/-
2.	For loss of income of parents	Rs.15,110/-
3.	For pain and suffering	Rs. 20,000/-
4.	For special diet	Rs.11,400/-
5.	For conveyance	Rs.10,000/-
6.	For miscellaneous expenditure	Rs.10,000/-
7.	Total	Rs.1,79,610/-

¶47

A perusal of amount of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal would show that the learned Tribunal has granted meager amount for pain and suffering and miscellaneous expenditure. Accordingly, the amount of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal for pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/- and the amount of compensation granted by the learned Tribunal for miscellaneous expenditure is enhanced from Rs.10,000/- to Rs.20,000/- in both the

¶48

-6-

¶49

cases. The additional amount of compensation i.e. Rs.30,000/- - Rs.30,000/- in both cases shall carry interest @ 7% per annum from the date of application till the date of its realization. The rest of the terms and conditions of awards shall remain intact. The Insurance Company shall be at liberty to recover the amount from respondent No.2/owner of offending vehicle in both cases within a period of 60 days.

¶50

Accordingly, both appeals are allowed in part and the impugned awards are modified to the extent as indicated herein-above.

¶51

Sd/-

¶52

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)

¶53

Judge

¶54

Rekha

Priyanshu Kumari (Minor) v. Dhirendra Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Priyanshu Kumari (Minor) v. Dhirendra Singh

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

Ram Chandra Sahu Vs Smt. Maya Devi

Beedi Kamgar Grih Nirman Sahkari Samiti Maryadit Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Duleshwari Bai

Mahendra Bhoi Vs Hiralal Chauhan