Dinu Ram Sahu S/o Shri Harakh Ram Sahu Aged About 30 Years Occupation Marketing v. 1 - Praveen Kumar Sahu S/o Amrit Lal Sahu Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o No
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:33783 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 364 of 2024 Dinu Ram Sahu S/o Shri Harakh Ram Sahu Aged About 30 Years Occupation Marketing Officer, R/o House No. 8, Satnami Para, Village Keramuda, Post Bawankera, Tahsil And District Mahasamund, C.G., Present Address- C/o Aarti Rajbahar, Housing Board Colony, Village Pirda, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Praveen Kumar Sahu S/o Amrit Lal Sahu Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o No. 28/852 Shivnagar, Near Ravi Stall, Shankar Nagar, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. 2 - Liberty General Insurance Limited Occupation- Vehicle Insurer, Address No. 120, 1st Floor, M. M. Silver Plaza, In Front Of Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road, No. 1, Guru Ghasidas Ward, Telibandha, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. 3 - Manish Bagh S/o Late Megho Bagh Aged About 34 Years Occupation- Vehicle Driver, R/o Shakti Nagar (Raj Nagar) Behind Sulabh Complex, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G. ... Respondent(s) ________________________________________________________ For Appellant (s) : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Resp No. 1 : None appears though served For Resp. No. 2 :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Advocate For Resp No. 3 : Mr. Akash Mishra, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.05 10:17:23 +0530 -2- 17/07/2025 1. With the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, this appeal is heard finally at admission stage. 2. This is claimant’s appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Third Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal , Raipur (CG) vide award dated 16.11.2023 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.776 of 2021. 3. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed an application under Sections 166 and 140 of the Act of 1988 before the learned Claims Tribunal, Durg (CG) pleading therein that on 29.05.2021, at about 14:20 pm, applicant Dinuram Sahu was driving his motorcycle No. CG.04 / CK / 3305 slowly and cautiously on its left side. When he reached near a dhabha, driver (non-applicant No.3) of the vehicle Maruti Dzire car no. CG 04/ MY / 2640, driving the car very fast and carelessly, dashed applicant, due to which applicant Dinuram Sahu suffered serious injuries in his left leg, arm, elbow, wrist, knee and also suffered serious injuries in other parts of the body. He was taken to Community Health Center Arang where seeing his serious condition, was immediately referred to higher hospital. He was taken to Rupjivan Hospital Raipur for treatment where he remained admitted for two days, after that he was admitted to Jai Ambe Hospital Raipur, where he remained admitted from 31.05.2021 to 15.06.2021. Applicant Dinuram Sahu was healthy 30-years-old man, was working as a Marketing Officer in Unisem Agritech Pvt. Ltd., was receiving salary of Rs 23,500/- per month. Rods and screws were put on the joint bone of -3- the arm, and several stitches were put on the face and chin. Apart from this, other injuries on the body of the applicant were also treated. Pleading that applicant become completely incapable of working, claimed total compensation amount of Rs.1,02,00,000/- (one crore, two lakh rupees) from non-applicants under different heads. 4. Non-applicant No.1 did no appear before the claims tribunal and he was proceeded ex-parte, no written statement was filed by him. 5. Non-applicant No.2 /Insurance Company in its written statement denied the pleadings made in the claim application and further pleaded that the offending vehicle No. CG 04/MY/2640 should be used for private purpose according to the conditions of the insurance policy, but on the date and time of the accident the vehicle was being used for a purpose other than private use. The accident was reported two days later. Applicant himself is responsible for the accident. The amount of compensation claimed is highly excessive. In the circumstances of the accident where the applicant himself drove the motorcycle carelessly, non-applicant No.2/insurance company is not responsible for compensating the applicant. 6. Non-applicant No.3 in its written statement has pleaded that he is a skilled and experienced driver. On the date of the accident he was driving the car at normal speed, injured person came and collided on his own, accident happened due to negligence of the injured. The car was insured with non-applicant No.2 and non-applicant No.1 had valid and effective driving licence. If the Tribunal awards any compensation to claimant, then liability to pay the same would be upon non-applicant No.2. -4- 7. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.3 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which applicant Dinuram Sahu suffered grievous injuries. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, held non-applicants to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.9000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.2,70,463/-. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is less in the facts of case. Claimant suffered grievous injury over his person and has also placed on record disability certificate Ex.P-42. However, learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under head loss of future income, loss of future prospects, assessed loss of income during period of treatment of Rs.54,000/- only. Amount of compensation awarded under other heads is also not sufficient. 9. Learned counsel for respective respondents vehemently oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that claimant has been awarded compensation on all heads for which he is entitled for. Award of compensation is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record of claim case. 11. So far as submission of learned counsel for the appellant that learned -5- Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards disability suffered by appellant is concerned, though claimant has submitted disability certificate as Ex.P-42, however, perusal of which would show that it is temporary and it is recommended only for 3 years. Claimant has not produced any document showing his re-examination by doctor and assessing disability after completion of 3 years. No doctor has been examined in support of pleading of disability. 12. In the aforementioned facts of case, I do not find any error in finding recorded by learned Claims Tribunal that claimant failed to prove disability suffered by him. 13. Claimant suffered grievous injury over his person i.e. fracture of left radial bone with BBFA, fracture of D/E radius multiple, fracture of patella and nature of injury over patella is mentioned in radiograph of the left knee joint as commnunited displaced facture of patella with surrounding soft . Injury suffered by claimant is very grievous in nature. 14. Claimant might not have worked for considerable period of time for which learned Tribunal has assessed loss of income during period of treatment for 6 months which cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner, however, Tribunal has assessed income of claimant as Rs.9000/- per month. 15. Claimant in support of his plea of nature of occupation and income has submitted the documents of Unisem Agritech Pvt. Ltd. which is a letter dated 21.07.2022 wherein his resignation was accepted and he was relieved from the post of Marketing Officer. Though no witness is examined of the Unisem Agritech Pvt. Ltd. to prove said document, however, from document it is appearing that claimant was not working -6- as a labourer but he appears to be an educated person and working as Marketing Officer and therefore I find it appropriate to asses income of the claimant, treating him to be ‘skilled labourer’ and working in A- zone/area. According to Notification issued by the Commissioner-cum- Competent Authority under Minimum Wages Act, 1948, minimum wages for skilled labourer is fixed as Rs.11,150/- per month. Hence, looking to the date of accident i.e. 29.05.2021, income of the claimant is assessed as as Rs.11,150/- per month instead of Rs.9,000/- per month as held by learned Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. Accordingly loss of income of for period of 6 months comes to Rs. 66900 (11150 x 6). 16. Claims Tribunal has not awarded compensation under head of grievous injury. Looking to nature of injury suffered by claimant, I find it appropriate to award compensation of Rs.40,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. Claimant will further be entitled for compensation under head of ‘medical expenses’, ‘conveyance expenses’, ‘special diet’ ‘attendant’ and ‘pains and suffering’ as awarded by learned Claims Tribunal. 17.For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of Income for 6 months : Rs. 66,900 (11150 x 6) 2. Medical Expenses 3 Conveyance/Transportation : : (+) Rs. 1,26,463 (+) Rs. 10,000 -7- 4. 5. 6. 7. Special Diet Attendant Pains and Suffering Grievous injury : : : : (+) Rs. 18,000 (+) Rs. 12,000 (+) Rs. 50,000 (+) Rs. 40,000 Total compensation : Rs. 3,23,363 18.Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs.3,23,363/- instead of Rs.2,70,463/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 19. Aforementioned enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.f 2 20. Appeal is accordingly allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- Sd/-/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen