JAT v. Ramesh Kumar Sahu @ Khorbahara Sahu

Manager, Divisional Officer Bhilai, First Floor, Shivnath Complex, G.E.Road, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh 490023 ..............Insurer Of Vehicle No. D L-3/ C Y 6883, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. : None. 1 & 2 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Arvind Panda, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad 25/07/2025 Order on Board

This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant for enhancement against the award dated 13.9.2017 passed by the learned Additional Judge to 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 2535/12 whereby compensation of Rs. 9,34,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded.

Brief facts of the case, is that, on 16.06.2012 at about 11:30 AM, 3 when the appellant Manas was standing near Good Quality Enterprises situated at Supela, at that time respondent No. 1, driving an offending car bearing registration No. DE-CY 6883, dashed the said vehicle into the appellant, as a result of which the appellant sustained grievous injuries, including a compound fracture of his left leg. Thereafter, the appellant was admitted to the hospital and remained under treatment for 37 days. It was the case of the appellant that he was working as a fitter and repairer of electronic goods and earning Rs. 16,000/- per month, but due to the accident, he became unemployed and suffered 100% functional disability. At the time of the accident, the appellant was aged about 49 years. Before the learned Tribunal, the appellant proved his disablement to the extent of 28% vide Ex. P/69, duly proved by Dr. P.C. Deshmukh (A.W.2), and also proved his treatment through Dr. Sunil Kalda (A.W.3). He further examined Shinalalu Cherian (A.W.4) to establish his income from the financial years 2005-06 to 2012-13, and it was shown that for the years 2011-12 and 2012-13, no income tax was paid due to unemployment. The learned Tribunal, while concluding the proceedings, held that the appellant had suffered 28% permanent disablement vide Ex. P/69 and assessed his income at Rs. 10,000/- per month and Rs. 1,20,000/- per annum. 4 Considering the nature of injuries and disablement, the Tribunal assessed compensation for loss of efficiency at 40% of the assumed income and awarded Rs. 6,24,000/- for loss of efficiency, Rs. 18,000/- towards attendant charges, Rs. 2,52,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering, and Rs. 20,000/- towards transportation and special diet, thereby awarding a total compensation of Rs. 9,34,000/-. However, the learned Tribunal in a very casual manner decided the claim application and assessed low compensation, ignoring the permanent disablement of the appellant, thereby granting inadequate compensation.. Hence, this appeal.

The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 6,24,000/- towards loss of earning, Rs. 2,52,000 towards medical expenses, Rs. 20,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 18,000/- towards attended, Rs. 20,000/- towards transportation and special diet. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 9,34,000/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant/claimant.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,34,000/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the awarded compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, the compensation amount may be enhanced suitably. Hence, this 5 appeal may be allowed and awarded amount needs to be enhanced suitably.

On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement.

None for respondents No. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza.

Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 30,000/- towards diet and travelling and Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering are 6 hereby enhanced.