03.09.2025 1 - Rupesh Valde (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated v. 1 - Mithlesh Sahu S/o Kanhaiyya Lal Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o Mudipar
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1588 of 2017 Judgment Reserved on: 11.07.2025 Judgment Delivered on: 03.09.2025 1 - Rupesh Valde (Died And Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 18-06-2025. 1.1 - Madhuri Rupesh Valde Aged About 41 Years R/o New Qt. No. 66, Kumbhare Colony Kampti, Nagpur (M.S.) ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Mithlesh Sahu S/o Kanhaiyya Lal Sahu, Aged About 27 Years R/o Mudipar, Nawagaon, Police Station- Somni, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Driver., Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jitendra Bhandari, S/o Late Ramswarup Bhandari, Aged About 40 Years R/o Ganjpara, Nadi Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh. Owner., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 3 - National Insurance Company, Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Gurudwara Road, Durg, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Vartika Shrivastava, Advocate on behalf of Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate. For Respondent No. 1 : None. For Respondent(s) No. 2 : Mr. Akash Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Judgment 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant for enhancement against the award dated 21.07.2017 passed by the learned 2nd Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg District – Durg (C.G.), in MACT No. 88/2014 whereby compensation of Rs. 12,59,846/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 16.02.2013, at about 5:20 PM, the appellant was riding his motorcycle with a friend towards Dewada at Tedesara when the first respondent, in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the appellant's motorcycle from 3 behind, causing an accident. As a result, a dumper ran over the appellant, crushing both of his legs. He was initially taken to the District Hospital- Durg for treatment, and later transferred to Apollo Hospital, Bhilai, for further care. At the time of the accident, the appellant was aged about 30 years old and working as a potter for the railway. Due to the accident, both of his legs were amputated above the knees. A photograph showing the amputation and a disability certificate, indicating a 100% disability, have been submitted. Respondents No. 1 and 2 contested the case, claiming no accident occurred involving their vehicle and asserting that the vehicle was insured, thus making the insurance company liable. Respondent No. 3 i.e. the insurance company, argued that if any breach of policy conditions occurred, it would not be liable, and also contended that the claim amount was excessive, with both vehicles being contributory to the accident. The learned Claims Tribunal has framed six issues vide its impugned award granted the appellant a compensation to the tune of Rs. 12,59,846/-. 3. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,71,846/- towards loss of income, Rs. 12,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 5,76,000/- towards attendent. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 12,59,846/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant and respondent No. 3 insurance company was 4 held liable to pay the compensation amount to the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the claimant was aged about 30 years old and was working as Potter in the Railway Department and due to the accident his both legs were amputed above the knees. She further submits that due to amputation of both legs above knee there were septic spread in his body and due to which the claimant, namely, Rupesh Kumar Valde was died on 17.11.2018 and his wife, namely, Madhuri Rupesh Valde was brought on record as his legal representative or else the claimant would have worked in Railway till his retirement upto the age of 60 years. She further submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 12,59,846/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. She further submits that the compensation awarded under other heads is also on lower side and needs to be enhanced. Hence, this appeal may be allowed by enhancing the compensation amount suitably. 5. None for respondent No. 1 i.e. driver of offending vehicle. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 2 opposes the same. 7. On the other hand, it has been contended by the counsel representing respondent No. 3 that, given the specific facts and 5 circumstances of the case, the compensation amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal is both reasonable and adequate, and, therefore, does not warrant any further enhancement or modification. He further submits that the injured, Rupesh, continued to be employed in his position despite the injury he sustained, and, in fact, was promoted within his service a significant detail that was not disclosed by the claimant in his statements. He further submits that the decision to classify Rupesh's disability as 100% permanent, following the amputation of both his legs, was erroneous. He emphasizes that Rupesh, being a government employee in the Railway Department, was not fully incapacitated and, as such, the Tribunal's finding of total disability is incorrect and should be revisited. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. From the careful perusal of the record, it clearly transpires that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending dumper, which dashed the injured appellant from behind, as a result of which both his legs were crushed under the vehicle, the disability certificate (Ex. P/21) issued by Dr. Akhilesh Yadav (AW/3) categorically certifies 100% permanent disability, and this fact is further corroborated by the photographs on record which reveal the amputation of both legs, thereby leaving the 6 appellant with complete functional disability, though the appellant continues to remain in service with the Railways, the amputation of both legs has rendered him permanently incapacitated from discharging his duties in the same manner as before, and taking into consideration the medical certificate, the evidence of Dr. Akhilesh Yadav (AW/3), as well as the findings of the learned Tribunal, this Court affirms the assessment of 100% disability and holds that in the interest of justice and fair play, the appellant is entitled to enhanced compensation. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hare Krushna Mahanta vs. Himadari Sahu & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 262 has observed as under:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is borne from the record that the Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. It is imperative for this Court, however, to reiterate that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. This came to be reiterated by this Court recently in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204, wherein it was observed:” "17. The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence 7 produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount." 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards special diet, Rs. 2,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of amenities are hereby enhanced. 12.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 4,50,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat