Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:22825 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 160 of 2020 • Bharat Singh S/o Shyamlal Aged About 28 Years Permanent R/o Village Batari, Post Tivarata Thana Deepka, Tahsil Katghora District Korba, Chhattisgarh. Hall Mukam- Presently R/o Khallari Para Raipura, Thana D.D. Nagar, Post Raipura, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus --- Appellant/ Claimant 1. Sidhayak Sahu S/o Jagannath Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Khairkhundi Thana Ratanpur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Track No. C.G.10/A.K./8492). 2. Pradeepchandra Jha S/o Ramnath Jha R/o Dipupara, Ward No.15 Tarbahar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of the Offending Vehicle Track No. C.G.10/A.K./8492). 3. The New India Assurance Company Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.3, R.D.A. Belding, Bajrang Market G.E. Road Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of the Offending Vehicle Track No. C.G.10/A.K./8492). ____________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Deepak Gupta, Advocate : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate --- Respondents Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 10/06/2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 06.11.2019 passed by Learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, to First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, Chhattisgarh (for short “Claims Tribunal”) in Claim Case No. 347/2019, whereby learned Claims Tribunal allowed the application filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, Digitally signed by PAWAN KUMAR JHA Date: 2025.06.12 17:31:26 +0530 2 / 6 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) in part and awarded total sum of ₹ 2,20,164/- as compensation in injury case. 2. Facts of the case relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 17.08.2018, the applicant/ appellant being a pillion rider was going from Tivarta to Bateri on a motorcycle No. CG 12 AR 6449 driven by his friend Dinesh Kumar, at about 8:30 p.m., when they reached near Tivarta Kosabadi, non-applicant No.1/ driver of the vehicle truck number CG 10 AK 8492 suddenly stopped the truck on the middle of the road by applying brakes without any indicator, due to which motorcycle driven by Dinesh Kumar collided with the truck, causing an accident. In the said accident, applicant suffered grievous injuries. A report of the accident was lodged to Dipka Police Station, District Korba, on the basis of which a Crime No. 173/2018 was registered for alleged offence under Sections 279, 337, 338 IPC 3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking ₹ 18,50,000/- as compensation pleading therein that on the date of accident he was about 28 years of age, was an able bodied person. He was doing the labourer work in A.C.B. Power Plant and was earning ₹ 350/- per day. Due to motor vehicle accidental injuries, he is unable to do his work. 4. 5. Respondent No. 1/ Non-applicant No. 1 even after issuance of notice, did not appear before the Claims Tribunal, and he was proceeded ex parte. Respondent No. 2 /Non-applicant No. 2- owner of the truck appeared through his counsel and submitted his reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application, it was further stated that the accident occurred due to negligent driving of motorcycle by applicant's friend Dinesh Kumar in an inebriated state. On the date of the incident Non-applicant No.1 was possessing a valid license to drive the truck and the said truck was insured with non-applicant no. 3-insurance company, therefore, any 3 / 6 liability for compensation, would be of non-applicant No. 3- insurance company. 6. Respondent No. 3/ Non-applicant No. 3/ Insurance Company appeared through its advocate also filed its reply, denying all the adverse pleadings made in the application. It was further stated that on the date of accident, Dinesh Kumar/ driver of the motorcycle number CG-12 AR-6449, was driving the said motorcycle on the public road in a negligent and rash manner and he did not have a valid and effective driving license. As a result, the accident occurred due to the negligence of both the persons. If the involvement of truck number CG 10 AK-8492 is shown in the said accident, then the principle of contributory negligence would be attracted in this case. It is further pleaded that on the date of the accident, non- applicant no. 1 was driving the truck without a valid and effective driving license and the truck was being driven in the absence of fitness and permit. There was violation of conditions of insurance policy. 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, held that appellant suffered grievous injuries due to accident arising out of rash and negligent driving of truck by non-applicant 1. Breach of conditions of insurance policy and contributory negligence were not found to be proved and calculated the amount of compensation and awarded ₹ 2,20,164/- as total compensation with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application. 8. Learned counsel for appellant would submit that learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meagre sum of compensation in the facts of the case. Income of the appellant as assessed by the Tribunal is on lower side overlooking the date of accident ie., of the year 2018. On the date of accident even the minimum wages fixed by the competent authority is much 4 / 6 more than what the Claims Tribunal has assessed. He next contended that the amount of compensation awarded under other heads is on lower side and prays for suitable enhancement of amount of compensation. 9. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 3 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal considering entirety of the facts and circumstance of the case has awarded just and proper compensation which does not call for any interference of this Court. He also submits that the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation on all heads which the appellant is entitled for. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the record. 11. Sofar as the submission of learned counsel for appellant with respect to awarding less amount of compensation under the head of medical expenses is concerned, appellant suffered head injury in a motor vehicular accident, during course of treatment he was admitted to the hospital for about 10 days. Tribunal has awarded the entire bills which were placed and produced before the Claims Tribunal to the tune of ₹ 1,89,164/-. Learned counsel for appellant could not point out any error or perversity in the finding of the Tribunal that the Tribunal has not considered any of the medical bills as claimed and proved, hence, I do not find any error in the said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal with respect to award of medical bills and therefore the amount of compensation towards medical expenses of ₹ 1,89,164/- is affirmed. 12. Claims Tribunal has awarded ₹ 10,000/- towards special diet, ₹ 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and ₹ 5,000/- towards conveyance expenses and awarded loss of income for a period of one month as ₹ 6,000/-. however, Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards attendant. In the opinion of this Court, appellant is entitled for a sum of ₹ 10,000/- towards 5 / 6 attendant. Claims Tribunal has only awarded ₹ 6,000/- for loss of income during laid down period for one month. Though on the date of accident, appellant-claimant could not able to prove nature of employment and his income, in the overall facts of the case, Tribunal ought to have taken income as fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. According to the notification issued by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages Act, for the period from October 2017 to March 2018 the minimum wages fixed for unskilled labourer for C-Category city was ₹ 7,800/- per month. Therefore, I find it appropriate to accept the wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act for the purpose of calculating the amount of compensation. Thus, the loss of income for laid down period of one month would be ₹ 7,800/-. 13. For the foregoing discussion, the amount of compensation to be awarded to appellant-claimant requires recomputation, which is as under. Particulars Medical Expenses Special Diet Pain and Suffering Loss of income Attendant Conveyance Expenses Total Amount of compensation ₹ 1,89,164/- ₹ 10,000/- ₹ 10,000/- ₹ 7,800/- ₹ 10,000/- ₹ 5,000/- ₹ 2,31,946 14. Now the appellant-claimant shall be entitled for total sum of compensation of ₹ 2,31,946/- instead of ₹ 2,20,164/- as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount paid to the appellant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted from the amount of compensation as calculated above. Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 6 / 6 15.
Decision
In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. pwn Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge