High Court
Case Details
IK THE mOH COURT OP CHHATTISQAK ATBILASPUR M.A.IClNo. ^'^-fT of 2012 APPBLLANT: Cl^imant ^^Raj Tiwari S/o. RamsirQvan Tiwari aged abQUt 27 years, R/o. Neharu Nagar, P.S. - Civil Line, PostOffice NehruNagar, Distt.-BilaspiirfC.G.) •k«.: • . RESPONDENTS. 7m~' VERSUS : ; 1^/MukutNarayan Patel S/o Chandan Singh Patel, aged about 42 years, residence of Purani Basti, Thana Pattalgaon Distt.- JashpurNagar ( C.G.) ^ikas Kumar Agrawal S/b Ramesh Chandra Agrawal, residence of Jashpur road, Hind Colony, Thana Pattalgaon Distt.- Jashpur Nagar ( C.G.) "he Oriental Insurance Gotnpany Ltd., Front ofRajiv Plaza,BUs stand, Bilaspyr (CG). MEMO RANDUM OF MISCAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 QF MOTOR n
Legal Reasoning
;enterfamyigfJtbej^peaE^,^avuig perused, we find that no '• oase even,oh^ faets jis. niafle out tey the: appellant. claimant ,(IO),,Jt,,js,^jaaf,iajaiy^^case.On^^^^^I^ (appeUaht)—^Raj' "I'Fwarr'wBile goiiig oia his niotorcycle from Gharghoda fo Pattlalgaoii. was hit by one Pickup bearing registratiQn No. C<3'.14/'A3161 (oSending vehicle) , driven rashly and negligenfly by respondenf No.l. Due to this hit, .the clainiejnt ,feU,|;dQwrn.<and .sustaiqed fractures on his ^h^ds and leffi|legt^ was adm^tted^^:: Apqllo: Hospital, BilasFn-ir, where, he a^under^netreatnientforfew-days.,Atthetime of the It was acciileB-t, the appellant was aged about 35 years. alleged-that Ihe: was .working a& a Contractor and used to earnJRs.l!Q,Qp0/:-^per,|nio^<Ai.^no d^u was^ prQduced in that behalf). It is this event which led to fUing pf of the Act agauist the ,resRondents, qut of which, this appeal arises, claiming compGiisation^forthe injunessustamedby him. the claim^ getition lumder^^ (11) Therfespondent8'!Gontested:the elailii. The Tribunal, as stated supFEty 6y ffie iiiipugned award partty aUowed the claisi petitioh. ittawarded;®sum oflRs.l,:17,QOO/- towards . medieal expenses,^ Ks.S(}(M);/-£towardsmerital & physical agony, Rs.QOOEy- .towards - speiei.at -diefand Rs.25,000/- towards future - medical •:treatihent; Since. no .clinching evidenee fwas 1 pr6cteied"':tb- @rove:'the ineome of the appellant,il:tfae. n.0fional ^income .of' the .appellant was ..^terininey as ^Rs.3©,600'/;-;per;;artnum. The Tribunal . •;«' i :t ^*^; !!.®;i5•^^tte<st^^.i?FF^^^^^i5^&,^ S^^s-SySSSSsi^ ^ T^ deducted 20% towards expected loss of income and reduced the annual income to Rs.7200/- and then by applying multiplier of 16 (7200 x 16), awarded a sum of Rs.1,15,200/- towards total future loss of income. In this way, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,67,200/-. Since the Tribunal held the appellant responsible to the extent of 20% for contributing to the accident and therefore, while awarding a total sum of Rs.2,67,200/- to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him, it reduced the compensation to the extent of 20% i.e. Rs.2,13,760/- (2,67,200 - 53440 (20%) = 2,13,760) and hence, a total by way of sum of Rs.2,13,760/- was awarded compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the vehicular accident. It is this determination, which is igned by the claimant, being on lower side, hence, this appeal for enhancenient. 't. • • {12}_ In. our opinion, looking to the evidence adduced by the clainiant, which we perused, it clearly appears to be a case where the claimant has been awarded adequate compensation for 20% permanent disablement suffered qn his bddy due to the injuries sustained by hinr'in vehicular accident. What is material for clainiing corapensation in such cases is not sustaining of injury only, but the extent of daniage suffered by the injured (claimant) on account of injury. The claimant should feel satisfied that he survived in the accident, because, God was kind to him. He should not, therefore, unnecessaiy encash his destiny in terras of ~money for clainung more than what is awarded. As obseryed by the Supreme Court in many.cases, the award of compensatiion should not be a bonanza to elaimant, nor should be. .like a booty to him. A just Gompensation co'mmensurate with the damage caused is the only criteria, wjiich should be kept in mind. We follow this principle in -5- •^ letter and spirit while deciding the appeal and on appreciation of evidence adduced, uphold the award of compensation of Rs.2,67,200 /-, which in our view, is just and reasonable looking to the age of injured, nature of injuries sustained and extent of partial disability resulted. (13) So far as the issue relating to the extent of negligence contributed by the appellant in causing the accident is concemed, this issue has been well decided by the Claims Tribunal in para 9 of the impugned award. Therefore, no case for interference in the finding recorded by the Tribunal is made put so far as contnbutory negligence is concemed, , In our view, (14) totality of the cu-cumstances taken note of supra, we do taking into account therefore, the not find any ground to further'enhance the compensation awArcted by the Tribunal, which in our opinion, appears to be just and proper keeping in view the requirement of the Act. . (15) The appeal .thus.fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.. ->f . :, :. .. . (16) Nocost. Sd/- Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge Sd/- G.Minhajuddin Judge s shyna
Arguments
D.B.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhav Manohar Sanre & Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Minhajuddin MA(C) No. 1175 of 2012 APPELLANT Raj Tiwari RESPONDENTS Mukut Narayan Patel and another Versus MEKTORANDUM OFAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE^IOTORVEHICLESACT Aopearatice-:; ••^i^ :;;.^';:!,'::'; ^i^'^: ^;;--_.:,:: ,^ •• ^ Mr. Utkal Pradhan, Counsel for the appellant. ORALORDER (07;01.2!013) The following order of the Court was passed by Abhav Manohar Sanre. J. Heard. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimantunder (2) Secfiori 173 bf the Mofbr VeKicles Acf, 1988 (for short,"the Act") against the,award dated 30,04.2012 passed by the First AdditionaJ MotQr Accident Claims Tribunal,.Bilaspur (for short "the TribunaF') ir(CIaim,CaseNo.l36/2010. By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed (3) the claim petition filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Act and awarded a total sum of Rs.2,67,200/- by way of compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained:by him in vehieular acGident; However, Since the m liUiUtittiiiiBiiS •2- Trityunal iwas' of ;tH.e^yiew thaf the claimant was also 'responsible^for'cffii.isiajig aGGident to the extent of 20% and hence, he was^held ]liable to receive Rs.2,13,760/- being 20%ofthe whble awarded sum towards injuriessustained by the claimant. Also heard onI.A. No.l, an application made by the (4) appellant seekmg.condonatiQn ofdelay in filing the appeal. The appealis barred by 130 days. (5); So t];ie,guestion,thaf^arises;&r consideratipn in this ; 4s whet±ier.an^'.i3ase^t&made; out. for ,cDndonatipn of ^of,aTcnj,ndlg?3rda^js,inffiling.jl.tu,sappeal9 . • -''.,....,.'.•.• •.. '. .•.'.-.. (6) unexplained. Irti Qur, Gpinion, the delay of 130 days is totally It is indeed inordinate and thus cannot be condoned, jfor-.want.^of^any sufficient cause, ,which is reqUired to fce fniade, put under Sectlpn 5 of the Limitation Act. SecondlY,^'«vhGn-,ti'tpjAct_laas given 90 days to file an appeal, then, there is absolutely no reason as to why the appellant,waited.jor),13Q^d%rsto;filean^appeal., That apart, neither^ prQper;iactg, are,, ptead^d | npr any documents are filed in.,,su@pQrf^ Qf,,;^ueb;^allegatiQnS( except usual aveTments.1^ •;; ?;/:; . ; •-.-• i;- .:'!1!'' .^;:.^.--r., L.-ie: :_,.;.,:;.;.., t:..,, ,^;..; ;::. . : , In, view pf;fbregouag,discussions, we are of the (7) opin3bon,thaJ;,no,easei§iingdp qut^on factsfcr condpnation of delay^ in Gling|tH& aggegl, ;.. e; api3lication i.e. 1.A. • No.Ol is.thus lia,ble|to;be^itsi|nissed^ ^t.is .aGGordingly, dismissed. As a consequence, fhe appeal too is dismissed as (8) being barr.ed by time. Since the appeal is being dismissed as barred by time and hence, it is not necessary for us to 1.11 .i litti • (i^jij^ ; ^ '^>^---' m 11 ;examfa tBes(^tt>Ereei^ifi\TOlved in^a^ appeal tKliis fails ;and?is dismissed as barred by time. on merits. The Eyeffi thsri;'w»j.ipeFu§ed^t^ ^(9) view to SndjQljt^^^to wHether any case ismade out for award with a