Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.04.07 15:27:26 +0530 2025:CGHC:15746 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1522 of 2017 Arun Yadav S/o Tekaram Yadav, Aged About 28 Years R/o Rani Laxmi Bai Chowk, Kelabadi, Durg, Thana- Durg Kotwali, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant 1. Smt. Shashi Prabha Diwan Joujay W/o Late Umesh Kumar Diwan, Aged About 42 Years R/o Quarter No. B /42, New Police Line, Durg, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Driver - Vehicle Hero Honda Splender No. C. G. 07 L N 8948) 2. (A) Branch Manager, Bajaj Aliyanj National Insurance Company Limited, Aakash Ganga Complex Supela, Behind Police Traffic Tower Supela, Tehsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Owner - Vehicle Hero Honda Splender No. C. G. 07 L N 8948) (B) Divisional Manager, Bajaj Aliyanj National Insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhawan Pandri Road Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer - Vehicle Hero Honda Splender No. C.G. 07 L N 8948) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondents 2. (A) & (B) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Amit Nayak, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate Mr. Prasant Sahu, Advocate, on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Decision
Order on Board 03 / 0 4 / 202 5 1. This appeal arises out of award dated 23.09.2017 passed by 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No.20/2012 awarding compensation of Rs.2,72,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization, in favour of the injured claimant. 2. The claim of appellant/claimant before the Tribunal, in brief, was that on 16.01.2011 at about 11:15 p.m., when he was returning from Durg on his motorcycle Hero Honda Plus No. CG 07 LF 0492, near jail road in front of Swami Vivekanand Community Hall, respondent No.1-Smt. Shashi Prabha Diwan Joujay driving the offending motorcycle Hero Honda Splendor bearing registration No.CG 07 LN 8948 rashly and negligently dashed his motorcycle, as a result of which, he suffered grievous injuries on various parts of his body and fell unconscious. With the help of local people and friend, the claimant was immediately admitted to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur for treatment. 3. It was claimed by Claimant Arun Yadav that before accident, he was earning Rs.12,000/- per month working as an Accountant. On account of the accident, he has become blind from the left eye and has suffered serious injuries in both his legs, knees and other parts of the body. Therefore, the claimant preferred an application before the Tribunal claiming total compensation of Rs.8,80,000/- under various heads. 4. On the basis of Permanent Disability Certificate (Exhibit P-13/C) issued by Dr. C. S. More, in para 18 of its judgment, the Tribunal found that there is 30% loss of vision in the left eye and 10% loss of vision in the right eye. Thus, a total of 40% permanent visual 3 impairment (reduction in vision) has been found. On the basis of the entire evidence presented, the award has been passed in Amount favour of the claimant as under: Heads Medical expenses Travelling/transportation Special diet Assistant Loss of income during treatment Loss of income in future Physical and mental agony Loss of amenities Future outdoor medicines treatment and 69,000 7,000 10,000 9,000 27,000 1,00,000 20,000 20,000 10,000 Total Rs.2,72,000 5. The Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs.2,72,000 in favour of the claimant with interest @ 6% per annum, from the date of application till its realization. While passing the impugned award, the Tribunal has exonerated the insurance company from its liability on the ground of breach of policy conditions. Hence, this appeal is for enhancement and for an order of pay and recover. 6. Learned counsel for appellant/claimant submits that the monthly income of the appellant was Rs.12,000/- whereas Tribunal has assessed it to be only Rs.4,500/- which should be enhanced. He further submits that the compensation amount should be enhanced by calculating his loss of income on the basis of 40% permanent disability certified issued by the doctor. He also submits that though the insurance company has been exonerated, considering the beneficiary legislation of the Motor Vehicles Act, an order of pay and recovery may be passed. 4 7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents 2 A & B opposes the submission made by the counsel for appellant and submits that in the facts and circumstances of case, the award passed by the Claims Tribunal is just & proper and does not require any enhancement. He also opposes the prayer for an order of pay and recover. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 11. The Tribunal, in para-39 of the award has held that claimant Arun Yadav has suffered permanent visual impairment but the claimant, who was earlier doing a private job of Accountant, is currently working as Assistant Teacher Panchayat in the Education Department and his monthly salary is Rs. 11,500/-. Therefore, the award in question has been passed by assessing a lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- for loss of his future earnings due to permanent visual impairment. 12. According to the permanent disability certificate Exhibit P-13/C issued by Dr. C. S. More, 40% permanent visual impairment has been found. Since the appellant is working as an Assistant Teacher Panchayat in the Education Department, there does not appear to be any loss in his income due to decrease in his eyesight. In the above situation, the lump sum amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of future earnings is found to be appropriate. Hence, there is no need to enhance under that head. 5 13. Thus, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is found to be just & proper. 14. As far as the question of ‘pay and recover’ is concerned, in the case the vehicle was found to be insured but the insurance company was exonerated of its responsibility due to violation of insurance conditions. The appellant/claimant requested for an order of pay and recover which was opposed by the insurance company. 15. In the present case, admittedly, the offending vehicle was insured with respondent no.2 but due to breach of policy conditions, the insurance company has been exonerated. However, considering the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Amrit Paul Singh & another. Vs. Tata AIG General Insurance Company Limited & others reported in (2018) 7 SCC 558 ordering the insurance company to pay first and then recover and also taking note of the facts and circumstances of the present case, particularly the fact that at the time of accident the vehicle was insured with insurance company, it is directed that the Insurance Company shall first pay the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant/claimant and then recover the same from the owner/driver of the offending vehicle. 16. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein above. 17. Record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith along with a copy of this order for information and necessary action, if any. Sd Khatai Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge