• Arun Tiwari S/o Late Satyanarayan Aged About 40 Years R/o Sheetala Para, Pulgaon v. 1. Nageshwar Rao S/o Surya Rao Nayadu Aged About 55 Years R/o Ganjpara, Behind
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16982 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 106 of 2019 • Arun Tiwari S/o Late Satyanarayan Aged About 40 Years R/o Sheetala Para, Pulgaon, Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsil And District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant/Claimant versus 1. Nageshwar Rao S/o Surya Rao Nayadu Aged About 55 Years R/o Ganjpara, Behind Prince Bar, Police Station Pulgaon, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Pick Up Cg-04, J-0719). 2. Vikram Singh S/o Late Bane Singh Aged About 44 Years R/o House No. 581, Behind Prince Bar, Police Station Pulgaon, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Pick Up Cg-04, J-0719). 3. The National Insurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Division Office, Upper Side Of Karnataka Bank Limited, Station Road, Durg District - Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Pick Up Cg-04, J-0719). ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Adv. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.11 17:25:58 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board ( 11 . 04 .202 5 ) 2 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 29.09.2018 passed by 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District-Durg (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 202/2017 whereby a compensation of Rs. 1,93,100/- with interest @ 06% per annum has been awarded in favour of the appellant/claimant for his irreparable loss. 2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, was that, on 04.09.2016 at about 7:30 pm, the appellant was going from Indira Market, Durg to his house in Pulgaon along with his friend Gopal Vishwakarma sitting as pillion rider on a motorcycle Hero Honda bearing registration No. CG-07-AR-1930, and as soon as they reached near Prince Bar located at Ganjpara, Durg, respondent No.1, the driver of Max Pickup bearing registration No. CG-04-J-0719, while driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle in which the appellant was sitting, due to which the bone of the left hand of the appellant got fractured, and he suffered grievous injuries in various parts of the body. The appellant was taken to the district hospital, Durg, for treatment, where he was admitted from 04.09.2016 to 05.09.2016. After that, he was admitted for treatment in Dr Rajendra Pandey’s clinic from 05.09.2016 to 12.09.2016, where the doctors operated on his left hand, and his treatment is still going on. The report of the said accident was lodged in Police Station, Durg. It is claimed that at the time of the accident, the appellant was aged about 40 years and used to 3 earn Rs. 15,000/- per month by driving the auto vehicle No. CG- 07-T-4216. Due to the injuries sustained in the said accident, the bone of the left hand of the appellant got fractured, due to which he cannot move in the vehicle without an accompaniment and he is not able to live a normal life and he has become almost 100 per cent permanently disable, due to which he will not be able to work as before for the rest of his life. About Rs. 2,88,000/- has been spent on the treatment of the appellant, and about Rs. 1,00,000/- is likely to be spent on future treatment. Thus, due to the accident, the appellant has suffered a loss of Rs. 6,80,000/- for which the respondents are jointly or severally responsible. Hence, a claim application under Section 166 of M.V. Act has been preferred by the appellant claiming a total compensation of Rs. 6,80,000/- 3. In the award passed by the Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced thereof, it was held that grievous injuries had been caused to the Appellant in the said accident and also found that due to the said accident the appellant was admitted in the hospital for 13 days i.e. from 04.09.2016 to 05.09.2016 and from 13.11.2016 to 23.11.2016 the left hand of appellant got fractured due to which he suffered 45% per cent permanent disability in the said accident for which he has produced a permanent disability certificate vide Ex.P-83 and also produced medical bills vide Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-81. On the basis of the overall evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation in the following manner:- 4 Sl. No. Heads Compensation 01 02 03 04 05 06 Towards Medical Bills Towards special diet Rs. 57,025/- Rs. 3,000/- Towards physical and mental pain Rs. 20,000/- Towards disability in left hand Towards Assistance Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 3,000/- Towards loss of income for 6 months Rs. 90,000/- Total Rs. 1,93,025/- 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the appellant was admitted in the hospital for 13 days (i.e. from 04.09.2016 to 05.09.2016 and from 13.11.2016 to 23.11.2016), underwent treatment and suffered mental agony for a long time. He also submits that the left hand of the appellant got fractured, due to which a rod was inserted. He is facing difficulties in his work, and his income is also affected. The learned claims tribunal though came to the finding that the injured suffered 45% permanent disability but failed to award loss of future earnings without considering the fact that the injured was driver and due to his fracture in life hand, he can not operate the auto rickshaw properly, hence there has been future loss of earning which has not been awarded. The learned claims tribunal failed to award compensation under the head of future treatment to the extent of 45%. He also submits that the learned claims tribunal has awarded less compensation under the head of healthy diet, physical agony, disability assistance, etc., which needs to be enhanced. As such, the appeal is liable to be allowed. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 argues that the 5 compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. Therefore there is no need for any enhancement and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 7. From the perusal of the entire material available on record, particularly, looking to the medical bills Ex.P-13 to Ex.P-81, it is clear that the appellant was admitted in hospital for 13 days i.e. from 04.09.2016 to 05.09.2016 and from 13.11.2016 to 23.11.2016, and underwent treatment, his left hand was operated and rod was inserted. The appellant has produced a disability certificate vide Ex. P-83 to the extent of 45% issued by the medical board, which has been considered by the claims Tribunal and a lump sum amount of Rs. 20,000/- has been awarded for disability. The appellant/claimant has not produced any driving license. The doctor has stated that the 45% disability is only in the hand of the appellant and not the entire body, therefore, it is not necessary to estimate the loss of income on the basis of the percentage of disability. Further, it is also clear from the medical documents and bills that he has spent Rs. 57,025/- in his medical expenses, and certainly he would spend on his treatment in future as his left hand got fractured and a rod has been inserted, but no amount has been awarded towards expenses in future treatment. Thus, considering the overall material available on record, it is appropriate to enhance 6 some compensation amount on the head of disability and expenses towards future treatment. 8. Accordingly, looking to the disability certificate (Ex.P-83) of the appellant, Rs. 20,000/- towards disability is enhanced in addition to Rs. 20,000/- as awarded by the claims tribunal, and Rs. 15,000/- towards expenses in future treatment is also awarded. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 35,000/- is hereby enhanced. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 35,000/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the claims Tribunal as compensation. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and the rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 10. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimant in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. H.L. Sahu Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge