26968 NAFR Bali Pradhan S/o Shri Udhavan Pradhan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village v. 1 - Dariyab Singh S/o Umendra Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Bhurbhuri
Case Details
1 YOGESH TIWARI Digitally signed by YOGESH TIWARI Date: 2025.06.30 19:03:55 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 739 of 2018 2025:CGHC:26968 NAFR Bali Pradhan S/o Shri Udhavan Pradhan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Pikardhi, Police Station Tika Bali, District Kandhmal Odisa, Presently Resided At Housing Board Colony Sejbahar District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - Dariyab Singh S/o Umendra Sahu Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Bhurbhuri, Police Station Gandhai, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Tekan Ram Dewangan S/o Late Mehttar Ram Dewangan R/o Tikripara, Gandhai, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madina Building Jail Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Insurance Company : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge Judgment on Board 23.06.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the award dated 07.02.2018 passed by the Second Additional Judge to the Court of First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District Raipur (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as 'Claims Tribunal') in MACT No.829/2016 whereby 2 learned Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part of the claimant. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of this appeal, in a nutshell, are that, on 10.09.2015, the appellant along with his friend Chaman was going to his house at housing board colony, Sejbahar on a motor cycle. At about 3:30, when they reached near Pragati collage chowk then a Hyva bearing registration No.C.G.-08L-2360 coming from Dhamtari side, driven by its driver rashly and negligently dashed with the motor cycle of petitioner as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries over different parts of body. He has been brought to Mekahara for treatment, where from he was brought to Relax Hospital, Cuttak, Odisha. He has become 100% disabled person due to the injuries sustained in the accident. He was 45 years old and earning Rs.13,000/- per month by working as security guard. A criminal case under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 has been registered at Police Station Mujgahan District Raipur. 3. The claimant has filed a claim petition claiming Rs.66,70,000/- as compensation under various heads. 4. The respondents Nos.1 and 2 have filed their joint written statement, in which they have denied the facts mentioned in the claim petition. They have further pleaded that the accident has been taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 was having a valid driving licence 3 and vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3 so, the liability if any arises, is of respondent No. 3. 5. The respondent No.3 filed its separate written statement in which it has also denied the contents of the petition and further stated that accident has been taken place due to rash and negligent riding of motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G.-04CT-1028 by Chaman Dass Maheshwar. Accident was the result of head on collusion of two vehicles so, a case of contributory negligent is made out, therefore, the driver, owner and insurance company are the necessary and proper party in the present litigation, but the petitioner has not impleaded them so, the claim petition was not maintainable. The respondent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving licence and respondent No. 2 was not having permit, fitness, therefore, they have violated the terms of insurance policy. 6. On appreciation of pleadings, oral and documentary evidence brought on record by the respective parties, Claims Tribunal held that the claimant has suffered severe injuries as also held that appellant has lost his earning capacity @ 70%, awarded Rs.11,57,545/- as total compensation at the rate of interest 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization and fastened the liability to pay the amount of compensation upon the Insurance Company. 7.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the Claims 4 Tribunal has not properly awarded the compensation amount looking to the injuries sustained by him. He further submits that learned Claims Tribunal has erred in not taking into consideration the disability certificate issued by the Medical Board, in which the appellant has suffered 100% permanent disability. It has been contended that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meagre amount of compensation as well as erred in not awarding any future prospects in the facts and circumstances of the case. It has been further contended that learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of injured and determined the compensation on the lower side. He lastly submits that in the given facts and circumstances of the case, appeal may be allowed and just compensation be awarded to the claimant. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company submits that the accident was the result of head on collusion of two vehicles as such, the case of contributory negligent is made out as well as there are non-joinder of necessary party. He further submits that the driver was not having a valid and effective driving licence and owner was not having permit, fitness, therefore, they have violated the terms of insurance policy, as such, the Insurance Company be exonerated to satisfy its liability to pay the amount of compensation. 5 9. I have heard and considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. 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. 11. Now, this Court has to examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.11,57,545/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 12. From perusal of the record, it is apparent that the the appellant was brought to Mekahara and thereafter Relax Hospital at Cuttak for treatment, but his wounds could not be healed so, he was operated and his left leg was cut at mid thigh. He has become permanent disabled person due to the injuries sustained in the accident. He was working as a security supervisor in IIM Collage Sejbahar under Goldenary Services and getting salary of Rs.13,000/- per month. Devendra Kumar Sinha (PW-1) has proved that petitioner was serving as a security guard in IIM Collage. He has proved the salary certificate Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/3. 13. As per the salary slip, appellant was drawing total salary of Rs.10,234/- per month. Therefore, for the purpose of determination of compensation, the income of petitioner was taken to Rs.10,234/- per month i.e. Rs.1,22,808/- per annum. The 6 appellant has also produced his disability certificate Ex. P/84(C), issued by District Hospital, Kandhamal and as per said certificate, he has become 100% permanent disabled person. The said certificate has been duly proved by Dr. Vridhavan Bishoi (PW-3). 14. After considering the material on record, learned Claims Tribunal has held thus :- “17. ….On amputation of a leg, it can't be said that he will be no longer able to do the said job. Devendra Kumar Sinha Pw1 has come from IIM Raipur and he has also nowhere stated that after the accident the petitioner is not working as security guard. The petitioner has also nowhere stated that due to his disability he is not working as security guard in IIM Raipur. Moreover, he was covered under E.S.I. and if it is assumed that he is no longer in the service then obviously, he will be getting the pension as per E.S.I. rules. The petitioner has not placed on file any detail about the pension getting from E.S.I. In such a situation, it is safe to presume that he will be getting at least 30% of his last drawn salary as pension. Therefore, his disability regarding loss of earning capacity is considered as 70 %. So, his loss of income is assessed Rs.1,22,808/- X 70% = Rs.85,965/- per annum for determination of the compensation. 18. The date of birth the petitioner is 01-07- 1964 as mentioned in Adhar Card Ex. P85 7 (C) so, on the date of accident i.e. 10-09- 2015, he was 50 year old. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sarla Verma and others Versus Delhi Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 has held to take 13 as multiplier where deceased is between the age of 46 to 50. Therefore, the petitioner will be entitled of ₹ Rs.85,965/- X 13 = Rs.11,17,545/- under head of loss of earning.” 15. Taking into account the facts of the case, this Court is of the opinion that learned Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.11,17,545/- towards loss of earning. 16. Further, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of National Insurance Company Limited v. Pranay Sethi and others1, the claimant is also entitled for the additional amount of 50% of the income towards future prospects as the claimant cannot said to be in a permanent employment and was below 40 years on the date of accident. 17. In view of the above, the amount of award assessed and calculated by the learned Claims Tribunal requires reconsideration and recalculation. This Court proposes to recalculate the award in following terms:- The annual income of the claimant is taken for determination of compensation as Rs.85,965/- (as determined by 1 AIR 2017 SC 5157 8 the Claims Tribunal) and by adding 15% of the income towards future prospects i.e. Rs.12,895/-, the annual income of the claimant would be assessed as Rs.98,860/-. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged about 50 years, therefore, in view of the matter of Sarla Verma (Smt.) and others v. Delhi Transport Corporation and another2, multiplier of 13 would be applicable in the present case. After applying the multiplier of 13, total loss of income of the claimant comes to Rs.12,85,180/-. 18. This Court is aware that the amount which is to be awarded to the claimant/injured should be 'just compensation' and not a bonanza. The award will be for pecuniary damages and non- pecuniary damages. The assessment of the amount of non- pecuniary damages is quite difficult and several aspects are required to be taken into consideration like nature of injury, age of injured etc. 19. Looking to the nature of injury (amputation of leg), the claimant is also entitled for an amount towards pain and suffering for the injuries sustained by him which he would suffer for whole of the life which he has to go, as such, this Court thinks fit to award Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering. The claimant is also entitled for Rs.15,000/- towards special diet and Rs.10,000/- towards miscellaneous expenses like transportation etc. 20. On the basis of above recalculation, the claimant will be entitled for total compensation of Rs.14,10,180/- instead of compensation 2 (2009) 6 SCC 121 9 of Rs.11,57,545/- as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal. The amount already deposited by the Insurance Company would be adjusted from the amount of award as calculated by this Court. The amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim application till its realization. The other conditions imposed by the learned Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. 21.
Decision
In the result, the appeal filed by the claimant is allowed in part. The impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein- above. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs.2,52,635/- in addition to what is already awarded by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 7.5% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. It is made clear that remaining amount of award shall be paid by Insurance Company within a period of sixty days. 22. Record of the concerned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal be sent. Yogesh Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge