Mungeli, Chhattisgarh v. 1. Virendra Singh S/o Kanhaiya Singh Rajput Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Gandhidih
Case Details
Page No.1 2025:CGHC:14207 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 657 of 2020 1. Chakradhar Yadav S/o Aasharam Yadav Aged About 18 Years R/o- Mahamayapara Lormi District- Mungeli (Chhattisgarh), District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Virendra Singh S/o Kanhaiya Singh Rajput Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Gandhidih Ward No. 11, Lormi District- Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G.28 B./4153). Driver, 2. Yashwant Singh S/o Shobharam Rajput Aged About 38 Years Permanent R/o- Mahaveer Ward Majgaon Lormi District- Mungeli (Chhattisgarh) (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Tractor No. C.G. 28 B./4153). Owner, 3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd Divisional Office Rama Trade Center Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) (Insurer of offending vehicle Tractor No.CG28-B-4153). .. Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant For Respondent No.1 & 2 For Respondent No.3 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A.L. Singraul, Advocate : None. : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 25/03/2025 1. There is no dispute regarding the accident, the cause of accident as also liability to indemnify the insured owner of offending vehicle by the insurance company, the sole question Page No.2 involves in this appeal for consideration is whether or not the Claims Tribunal has awarded adequate compensation to the claimant. In such circumstance, issuance of notice to respondent Nos.1 & 2, who are driver and registered owner of offending vehicle respectively, is dispensed with, and with the consent of the parties, the appeal is being heard finally at the admission stage itself. 2. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 6.12.2019 passed in Claim Case No.12/2019. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 24.3.2017 at about 7:45 p.m. in night, appellant along with his friend Somesh Yadav was returning village Sardha on a motorcycle. Appellant was travelling as a pillion rider. When they reached near village Ranigaon, the vehicle bearing registration number CG28-B- 4153, coming from from Lormi side and being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver – non-applicant No.1, badly dashed their motorcycle and caused accident. In said accident, appellant sustained grievous injuries including fracture in right wrist and shoulder. He was taken to the Community Health Centre, Lormi where he was given primary treatment and looking to critical condition, he was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur and consequently, he was admitted in CIMS Hospital. Thereafter, appellant was hospitalized in Mundra Hospital, where he underwent surgery and a rod was Page No.3 implanted in his right thigh. Accident was reported in concerned police station based on which offence was registered against the non-applicant No.1. 4. Claimant/appellant herein filed an application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.7,35,000/- under various heads inter alia on the ground that nature of injury suffered by him would require future treatment which would certainly cause pain and sufferings to him. 5. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 / respondents No.1 & 2 herein did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and therefore, they were proceeded exparte. 6. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company submitted its written statement denying the averments made in application, pleaded that the appellant, who was minor on the date of accident and not having driving license, was riding motorcycle and cause accident. Seating capacity of motorcycle was only for two persons. However, apart from appellant, two other persons namely Amit Shukla, Umesh Rajput were also travelling on the motorcycle. Driver of offending vehicle was not having valid license to drive offending vehicle, there was no fitness certificate. As the offending vehicle was being plied on road in violation of conditions of insurance policy, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 7. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has partly allowed claim application and Page No.4 awarded compensation Rs.1,53,155/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. The Claims Tribunal has recorded a finding that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. 8. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal while assessing compensation has not taken into consideration the fact that a rod was implanted in the right leg of appellant and the same has to be removed in future through surgery, which will definitely cause expenses as also pains and sufferings. He further submits that looking to the nature of injuries and period of treatment of appellant as inpatient, the amount awarded under the head grievous injuries, special diet, pains and sufferings is on lower side. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced suitably. 9. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 argues that the amount of compensation as assessed and granted by the learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference. He prays for dismissal of the present appeal. 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of Claims Tribunal. 11. Fact of accident so also liability is not disputed by learned counsel representing the Insurance Company, therefore, this Court is not entering into the said aspect. The only grievance of the claimant-appellant is with regard to quantum of compensation awarded. 12. Perusal of the medical documents on record would show that Page No.5 during treatment, three surgeries and implantation was done on appellant. An iron rod is claimed to have been implanted in the fractured right hand and leg bone of appellant to hold it in position. However, there is no evidence on the record that the implant would require removal in future. Even, it is a matter of old days when the implants were of a quality that were rejected by the body after sometime and they required to be removed. Now the implants are of such a quality that they are not rejected by the body and they provide strength to the fractured bone. Hence, there is no evidence that there is requirement of future surgery, which warrants any compensation to appellant for future surgery etc. However, looking to the nature of injuries suffered by appellant, which are grievous in nature, and considering that the malady caused by the fracture in the right hand and leg, appellant will have to carry on for his whole life, in the opinion of this Court, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering, special diet and transportation is on lower side and requires to be enhanced. 13. Going by the medical bills, which were produced by appellant as Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-66, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,13,155/-, out of Rs.2,00,000/- claimed by appellant under the head of medical expenses. The Claims Tribunal while scrutinizing medical bills (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-66) has disbelieved certain bills on the ground that amount mentioned Page No.6 in some bills are already included in other bill or in some bills there is no mention of date, time and year or some bills are repetitive. Said reasoning of the Claims Tribunal for disbelieving some medical bills is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 14. Accordingly, the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and Rs.5,000/- towards medical attendant. Now the appellant is entitled for compensation of Rs.1,78,155/- (113155+40000+10000+5000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application till its payment. Any amount of compensation disbursed to appellant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact.
Decision
15.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge roshan/-