Surajpur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Ifko Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Gaurishankar Mandir Road
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:14210 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 688 of 2020 1 - Suresh Mandal @ Sudan Mandal S/o. Govind Mandal, Aged About 22 Years R/o. Village Madanpur, P.S. Jainagar, Tahsil And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh...............Claimant, District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ifko Tokio General Insurance Company Limited Through Branch Manager Gaurishankar Mandir Road, Raigarh, P.S. And Tahsil Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh..............Insurance Company, District : Raigarh,Chhattisgarh 2 - Sadik Mohammad S/o. Gulam Nabi, Aged About 32 Years R/o. Village Sonpur, P.O. Shivprasadnagar, Police Chauki Basdei, P.S. Surajpur, Tahsil Bhaiyathan, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh..............Owner Of Chhattisgarh Offending Vehicle, Surajpur, District : 3 - Akalim Ansari S/o Islam Ansari, Aged About 32 Years R/o. Village Meral, P.O. Meral, District Gadhwa Jharkhand..............Driver Of Offending Vehicle, District : Garhwa *, Jharkhand ... Respondent(s) Ms. Priyanka Mehta, Advocate For Appellant For Respondent No.1 Mr. Pravesh Sahu, Advocate with Ms. Dhaneshwari Patel, Advocate. : :
Legal Reasoning
the accident occurred on 15.9.2017 and there is no dispute that in the said accident, injured-appellant suffered head injury as also fracture of radius, ulna, humerus, in the said accident, which are grievous in nature. He was treated in District Hospital Ambikapur and Ramkrishna Care Hospital Raipur from 15.9.2017 to 10.10.2017. Considering the nature of injuries suffered by appellant, it can be easily inferred that he must have remained at home atleast for a period of atleast 6 three months to recuperate. Thus, appellant is entitled for compensation towards loss of income for a period of three months. 12. Appellant is permanent resident of village Madanpur, District Surguja. He took treatment initially in Ambikapur and thereafter from Raipur and therfore, he must have spent amount on going to Ambikapur and Raipur for unergoing treatment. Perusal of taxi bill (Ex.A-109) issued by Friends Ambulance Service would show an amount of Rs.14,208/- has been charged for appellant for the journey from Raipur to Vishrampur. Therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court, appellant must have spent atleast Rs.28,500/- towards to and fro journey from his place of residence to Raipur for his treatment. Accordingly, the appellant is held entitled for a sum of Rs.28,500/- towards travelling expenses in place of Rs.20,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 13. So far as the medical bills are concerned, the appellant has submitted bills of Rs.1,15,950/- out of which Rs.60,000/- has been awarded. The Claims Tribunal not added amount mentioned in bills of Ex.A-71, Ex.A-95 and Ex.P-97 on the ground that the same are receipts of advance amount deposited and appellant has not exhibited final bills showing adjustment of said amount. Perusal of bills of Ex.A-71, Ex.A-95 and Ex.P-97 would show that appellant had deposited Rs.30,000/-; Rs.10,000/- and Rs.30,000/- respectively as an 7 advance for IP treatment. These are original advance payment receipts. There is nothing on record to show that the advance amount paid by appellant under these bills is either adjusted in any of the bills exhibited by appellant before the Claims Tribunal or refunded to appellant. Meaning thereby, appeallant has spent the amount under these bills i.e. Rs.70,000/-, towards his treatment and being so, he is definitely entitled to the amount claimed under aforementioned bills. The Claims Tribunal erred in not including these medical bills while awarding compensation under the head ‘medical expenses’. Therefore, it is ordered that appellant is entitled for Rs.30,000/-; Rs.10,000/- and Rs.30,000/- as claimed in Ex.A-71, Ex.A-95 and Ex.P-97 i.e. Rs.70,000/-. 14. As it has been a case of fractures of tibia, radius, ulna and humerus bones, an amount of Rs.30,000/- instead of Rs. 20,000/- could be awarded for physical and mental pain and sufferings. 15. The amount awarded by learned Claims Tribuna under other heads like special diet and attendant appears to be just and proper and needs no interference in the given facts & circumstances of case.
Arguments
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Judgment On Board 25/03/2025 1. Claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section NISHA DUBEY Digitally signed by NISHA DUBEY Date: 2025.04.03 15:50:17 +0530 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act of 1988') seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur (for short 2 'the Claims Tribunal') vide award dated 31.1.2020 in M.A.C. Case No.103/2018. 2. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 15.09.2017 at about 6.40 p.m., appellant along with his friend Sanju Mandal was returning home from his work place on motorcycle. Appellant was driving motorcycle and said Sanju Mandal was riding as a pillion rider. On the way, in front of shop of Dular Bain at Madanpur Main Road, one trailer bearing registration mark CG15-AC-4385, which was being driven rashly and negligently by non-applicant NO.3, dashed their motorcycle and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered grievous injuries. He was taken to Holycross Hospital, Ambikapur from where he was referred to Ramkrishna Hospital Raipur where he remained hospitalized from 17.9.2017 to 10.10.2017. Due to injuries sustained in accident, his right hand stopped functioning completely resulting in permanent disablement. 3. Claimant/appellant herein filed an application before competent Claims Tribunal claiming an amount of Rs.43,62,000/- as compensation under the head of medical expenses, nutritious diet, transportation, loss of salary during treatment period, physical and mental agony etc. 4. Non-applicant No.1 Insurance Company filed its separate reply and denied averments made in claim application except that on the date of accident the offending motorcycle was insured with it. Driver of offending vehicle was not having valid 3 and effective driving license and other documents relating to offending vehicle were also not valid and effective. As the vehicle was being plied without registration certificate, permit and fitness there was breach of conditions of insurance policy, therefore, it was pleaded by non-applicant No.1 Insurance Company that non-applicant No.2 & 3 only are liable to pay compensation to claimants. 5. Non-applicant No.2 & 3 i.e. owner & driver of offending vehicle respectively, filed their reply to claim application and denied all adverse pleadings made in application. They have pleaded that non-applicant No.3 was driving vehicle cautiously & carefully. On the date of accident offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.1 Insurance Company and as the offending vehicle was not plied in violation of any of the conditions of insurance policy, therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify owner in case any compensation is awarded to claimants by the Claims Tribunal. 6. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating pleadings and evidence brought on record by the respective parties has partly allowed claim application by holding that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of offending vehicle; claimant had not suffered any permanent disablement in the said accident; there was no violation of any condition of insurance policy and accordingly awarded Rs.1,38,000/- as compensation. 4 7. Learned counsel for claimant-appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal ignoring the evidence of AW-4 and document Ex.A-118 has erroneously assessed the income of deceased as Rs.20,000/-, which deserves to be enhanced. Even if the Claims Tribunal was of the view that appellant failed to prove his income by cogent evidence, then it ought to have fixed the same taking the minimum wage for workers prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act. She further submits that looking to nature of injuries suffered by claimant, amount of compensation calculated and awarded by the Claims Tribunal under various heads like special diet, conveyance, laid down period during treatment etc. is on lower side. She submits that considering the entire facts and circumstances of case, nature of injuries suffered by appellant and period of treatment, amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal be enhanced suitably. 8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-Insurance Company supported the impugned award passed by the Claims Tribunal and submitted that after taking into consideration the entire evidence available on record, Claims Tribunal awarded just compensation and the same cannot be said to be erroneous in any manner. 5 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. In the application, an amount of Rs.20,000/- was claimed as income by working as Driver. Since the income claimed by appellant was not supported by documentary evidence, the Claims Tribunal is justified in taking the notional income of appellant. However, in absence of proof of income, in the opinion of this Court, learned Claims Tribunal ought to have assessed the income of appellant on the basis of minimum wage prescribed under the Minimum Wages Act for unskilled worker on the date of accident. Accident occurred on 15.9.2017 and at the relevant point of time, the minimum wage for an unskilled worker of ‘C’ grade city notified under the Minimum Wages Act was Rs.7800/-. Thus, in the opinion of this Court, income of Rs.7,800/- per month should have been taken into account by the Claims Tribunal for assessing the loss of income. It is ordered accordingly. 11. From the medical evidence available in record it is clear that
Decision
16. For the foregoing reasons, this Court proposes to recompute the compensation payable to appellant. 17. Considering the monthly income of appellant as Rs.7800/-, the appellant will be entitled for a sum of Rs.23,400/- (7800x3) for the loss of income during laid down period. Appellant is also 8 entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.28,500/- for travelling expenses. Apart from this, appellant will be entitled for Rs.1,30,000/- towards medical expenses i.e. i.e. Rs.60,000/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal and Rs.70,000/- awarded above by this Court; Rs.10,000/- towards special diet and Rs.10,000/- towards attendant. Now, the appellant will be entitled for total compensation of Rs.2,31,900/- (23400 + 30000 + 28500 + 130000 + 10000 + 10000). This amount of compensation shall carry simple interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of claim petition till actual realization. Rest of the award impugned passed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. Any amount of compensation disbursed to appellant pursuant to the impugned award shall be adjusted. 18. Consequently, this appeal is allowed in part and impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated above. Sd/- Nisha (Part Prateem Sahu) Judge