Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:15204 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 460 of 2020 1 - S. Venket Jagannath Son Of S. Surya Narayan Aged About 35 Years R/o Qtr.No. 10, F. Street No. 30, Sector 5, Police Station Bhilai Bhatthi, District Durg Chhattisgarh. Versus ... Petitioner 1 - Kanshi Ram Pal Son Of Ballu Pal Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Mohbhattha, Purana Bazar Chowk, P.S. Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 2 - Seeta Ram Verma Son Of Chetan Verma R/o Parasbod, Ward No. 15, Tahsil Saja, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh. 3 - Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Tara Complex Power House, Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Vinod Kumar Sharma, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ajay Shrivastava, Advocate For Respondents No. 3 : Mr. Prasanjeet Dutta, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge 01/04/2025 Order On Board 1. Notice sent to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 returned unserved with a note “due to lockdown”. 2. As the liability to pay the amount of compensation is fastened upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, service of notice upon the Respondents No. 1 & 2 is dispensed with. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 3. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 30.11.2019 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Durg, District – Durg (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 491/2018. 4. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 04.10.2016, when the appellant along with his friend Suresh Raut was traveling on his motorcycle bearing registration no. CG 07 LX 9617 and going towards Raipur from Bhilai for pursuing his examination at National Corporate Park, at that time when they reached near Tatiband Square, the offending truck bearing registration no. CG 09 B 0758 driven by the Respondent No. 1 dashed the appellant’s vehicle and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant and Suresh Raut suffered serious injuries, they were taken to Narayana Hospital, Raipur. Subsequent to the accident, a crime was registered against the Respondent No. 1 for the alleged offences punishable under Sections 279, 337, 304-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 5. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the Disability Certificate submitted by the appellant in an appropriate manner and not awarded any amount of compensation towards the permanent disability, overlooking the contents of the Disability Certificate which mentions ‘permanent disability’ suffered over his right leg to the extent of 45%. The learned Claims Tribunal erred in not awarding the entire amount of compensation towards medical expenses as per the final bill of Shri Narayana Hospital (Ex. P-10) and not considering the monthly income of the deceased at the time of accident to the tune of Rs. 35, 323/- per month overlooking the salary statement of the appellant (Ex. P-15) proved by Subhrato Kumar AW-2 who is an employee of the Bajaj Alliance where the 3 appellant was working prior to the date of accident. He also contended that the amount of compensation awarded on other heads is also on lower side. Hence, the compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal be enhanced suitably. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal in the facts of circumstances of the case is just and proper. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 that the appellant in his evidence has admitted that the amount of medical bills has been paid by the Bajaj Alliance Company and the learned Claims Tribunal has found Ex. P-15 not proved, which is the salary statement of the appellant produced and proved by Subhrato Kumar AW-2 which cannot be said to be erroneous. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount awarded on other heads is just and proper and thus, the impugned award does not call for any interference. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records of the claim case. 8. So far as the income of the appellant as assessed by the learned Claims Tribunal as Rs. 20,000 per month for awarding loss of income during laid down period is concerned, the appellant has produced the salary statement as Ex. P-16. The salary statement of the appellant is found to be proved by the Subhrato Kumar AW-2 who is an employee of Bajaj Alliance company where the appellant was working prior to the date of accident. Perusal of salary statement of appellant (Ex. P-16) would show that the statement is of July, 2016 to June, 2017. The salary of July, 2016 which was considered by the learned Claims Tribunal as Rs.17,092/- as total earnings is only of 15 days and is not for the whole month. From the next 4 month onwards i.e. August, 2016 till June, 2017 the salary of the appellant has been mentioned for the whole month as Rs. 35,323/- per month. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal only considering the salary for the month of June, 2016 as Rs. 17,092/- has taken the income of the appellant as Rs. 20,000/- which is without any basis. If the salary is to be considered for awarding the amount of compensation for loss of income, then, the entire salary statement is to be considered. The witness namely Subhrato Kumar AW-2 who was examined on behalf of the employer, in his evidence, has categorically stated that the salary statement has been issued to him by the office/Bajaj Alliance. Hence, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal erred in disbelieving the statement of Subhrato Kumar AW-2 and the annual salary statement of the appellant produced by another employee of the employer and placed before the learned Claims Tribunal (Ex. P-16) on extraneous consideration. Hence, the said finding of the learned Claims Tribunal that the annual salary statement is not proved in accordance with law (Ex. P-16) in the opinion of this Court is erroneous which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Accordingly, it is set-aside. In the opinion of this Court, the annual salary statement has been proved by the appellant by examining Subhrato Kumar AW-2, an employee of the employer of the appellant by producing the annual salary statement which is said to have been forwarded/issued by the employer. Hence, in view of the considered opinion of this Court, I find it appropriate to consider the salary of the appellant as Rs. 35,323/- per month instead of Rs. 20,000/-. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the appellant will now be entitled for loss of earnings for a period of 06 months as considered by the learned Claims Tribunal which comes to Rs. 2,11,938/- (35,323 X 6). 10. So far as the further submission of the counsel for the appellant with respect to the non-awarding of the expenditure made towards the medical expenses is concerned, the appellant has not produced any document with respect to 5 the payment of the final medical bills (Ex. P/10). In absence of any proof of payment of the medical bills and further, in absence of any document to show that the appellant has taken the medi-claim and the payment of medical bills is against the medi-claim purchased by the appellant is not fond to be proved, hence, it cannot be said that the amount of medical bills is paid by the Bajaj Alliance Life Insurance Company is from the medi-claim policy purchased by the appellant. Hence, the said submission of the counsel for the appellant is repelled. The final medical bill shows that the amount of Rs. 8915/- is paid and further, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards the medical bills, Doctor has not been examined by the counsel for the appellant. In the aforementioned facts of the case, in the opinion of this Court, I do not find any good ground to accept the submission of the counsel for the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount towards medical expenses as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 11. Looking to the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant which is evident from the medical documents produced, in the opinion of this Court, the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs. 20,000/- towards the pains and sufferings and the same is enhanced to Rs. 30,000/-. Similarly, the learned Claims Tribunal also erred in awarding only Rs. 5,000/- as conveyance allowance and the same is enhanced to Rs. 10,000/-. Now, the appellant/claimant will be entitled for the total amount of compensation which is as under:- • Rs. 3,11,938/- (2,11,938 + 30,000 + 30,000 + 10,000 + 10,000 + 20,000) 12. Now, the appellant/claimant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 3,11,938/- as the amount of compensation. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 6 13. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.
Decision
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 15. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/- ------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge