Ble High Court
Case Details
IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR •^-( MISC. APPEAL (C) N0. OF 2012 APPELLANT/CLAIMANT «»+UdhoPrashad Dhritlahare S/o Late L 1— Indarman Prashad aged about 70 Years Resident of village -Bade Urla', Post and Police Station- Abhanpur, Tah & District- Raipur (C.G.) ^»w^ dated^...^- &ESPONDENTS v VERSUS ?-< Gauri Shankar S/o Parsuram, aged about 30 years, Occupation- Driver, R/o Baldha, Police Station - Bagomuka, District - Balangir (C.G.) Non-Applicant no. 1 2^'-' M/s Hora Transport Bilaspur Road, Fafadih, Tah & District- Raipur (C.G.) Non-Applicant no. 2 3...--" United India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Krishna Complex, Kachahari Chowk Raipur, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) Non-Applicant no. 3 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT c; HIGH^OURTOFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Legal Reasoning
SB: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre M A (Ct No. 827 of 2012 APPELLANT Udho Prashad Dhritlahare RESPONDENTS Gauri Shankar & others Versus MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Shri Pawan Kesherwani, Counsel for the appellant. Ms Akansha Jain, Counsel on the authority of Shri Sanjay S. Agarwal, Counsel for the respondeat No. 3. None for the respondents No. 1 and 2. ORAL OJRDER (18.02.2013) Heard. is This appeal filed by the appellant/claimant under (2) Secdon 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") against the award dated 20.04.2012 passed by the Fourth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim Case No. 290/2011. By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the (3) claim petition filed by the clairaant under Section 166 of the Act and awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,29,176/- by way of compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in vehicular accident. In view of short controversy involved in the appeal, it is (4) really not necessary to take note of the facts in detail except those which are necessary. It is also for the reason that findings in relation to nature of accident, how it occurred, who was responsible for causing injury, liability, etc. are decided in favour of claiinant by the Tribunal. In the absence of any challenge to these fmdings by the respondents, by not filing any cross appeal or cross objection, these findings have become final. 'c1 i.-t''3--.':^u.'?'" "..' (5) Dhritlehre, It is an injury case. Claimant (appellant) - Udho Prasad aged about 70 years, was an agriculturist. On 13.03.2011, the claimant was going to Abhanpur from his village urla by sitting in a motorcycle as a pillion rider. On the way, due to rash and negligent driving by the non-applicant No.l ( Gouri Shankar) the truck, bearing registration No. C.G. 04-J/2241 hit the motorcycle. In this accident, the clamant fell down from the motorcycle and received grievous injuries on his right leg and other parts of the body. This gave rise to filing of the clann petition by the injured (6) claimant under Section 166 oftheAct against the respondents, out "^ of which, this appeal arises, claiming conipensation for the injuries sustained by him and for grant of other claims arising out of injuries sustained. The non-applicants contested the claim. Parties adduced evidence. The Tribunal on appreciating the entire evidence adduced (7), by the claimant partly allowed the claira petition and awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,29,176/-, which included Rs. 1,01,176/- towards raedical expenses, Rs. 3000/- towards special diet and transportation charges, Rs. 90,000/- towards loss of eaming and Rs. 35,000/- towards physical disablement, pain and suffering. It is this determination, which is impugned by the claimant, being on lower side hence this appeal for enhancement. (8) perused record of the case, Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having I am inclined to allow the appeal in part. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimant (9) on the issue of injury sustained by him. In my opinion, taking into consideration the nature of injuries on the right leg, the extent of permanent disability occurred in the body of appellant (claimant) as a result of which he claims to be not as fit as he was prior to accident in his day-to-day work, resulting in reducing his capacity to a great extent to work, partially the expenditure incurred in receiving medical treatment in actual and to be incurred in future, the loss and mental pain, suffered due to his involvement in accident and particularly the amputation in right hand, I consider it proper to enhance the coinpensation froin Rs. 2,29,176/- to Rs. 2,75,000/- in lump sum. The claimant is thus held entitled for Rs. 2,75,000/- as (10) compensation from the respondents. In my opinion the compensation which I have awarded to (11) the claimant is a just, reasonable and proper looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into account the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases in relation to several heads taken note of supra with reference to evidence brought on record by the parties. Indeed, in such cases, no fixed and any static formula as sugti is provided for determining the compensation and the same is required to be determined on the basis of totality of evidence adduced and the relevant factors which are required to be taken into consideration, as mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the Courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained. Learned counsel for the appellant cited soine authorides (12) for claiming enhancement. I have gone through these authorities. In my opinion and as observed supra, eveiy case depends upon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensadon. Indeed taking into consideration these authorities and then applying the law so laid down to the facts of this case, I have arrived at the figure of enhanced compensation mentioned supra. the appeal succeeds and is In this view of the matter, Impugned award is modified to the extent (13) allowed in part. indicated above. The enhanced suin will carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a. froin the date of application till realization. All other findings are upheld being not under challenge. (14) No cost. —— Sd/- (Abhay Manohar Sapre) JUDGE lakur