Toran Sahu S/o Mohan Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Boirbhadi, Post Kodomeri v. 1 - Prahalad Khamhari S/o Ugrasen Khamhari, Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No
Case Details
-1- 2025:CGHC:37247 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 918 of 2024 Toran Sahu S/o Mohan Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Boirbhadi, Post Kodomeri, Police Station Jonk, Tahsil And District Nuwapada (Orissa) ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - Prahalad Khamhari S/o Ugrasen Khamhari, Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. 12, Nuwapada, Police Station Tahsil And District Nuwapada (Orissa.) (Driver Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Innova Car Bearing Registration No. O.D.26B-2222) 2 - Deoprasad Sahu S/o Rathuram Sahu Aged About 48 Years R/o Village And Post Tanwat, Police Station, Tahsil And District Nuwapada(Orissa.) (Owner Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Innova Car Bearing Registration No. O.D.26b-2222) 3 - The Manager, Sbi General Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Floor Pujari Chamber, Pachpedi Naka, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Alleged Offending Vehicle Innova Car Bearing Registration No. O.D.26b-2222) 4 - Deepak Sahu S/o Dular Singh, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Bihajhar, Post Bagbahra, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Alleged Offending Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. Cg-06/gs-8826) 5 - Ifko Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Shop No. 205, Second Floor, M.M. Silver Plaza, Near Khanij Bhawan, Mahavir Nagar, Ring Road Number 1, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Alleged Offending Motor Cycle Bearing Registration No. Cg-06/gs-8826) ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by PRAVEEN KUMAR SINHA Date: 2025.08.19 10:32:10 +0530 -2- ________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant (s) : Mr. S.P. Sahu, Advocate For Resp. No. 1 & 2 : None appears though served For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. KPS Gandhi, Advocate For Resp. No.4 : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Resp. No. 5 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate _______________________________________________________ S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Judgment On Board 30 /07/2025 Heard. 1. This is claimant's appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “Act of 1988”) seeking enhancement of amount of compensation awarded by learned Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (CG) vide award dated 03.02.2024 passed in Motor Accident Claim Case No.H-13 of 2023. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 the Act of 1988 before learned Claims Tribunal pleading therein that on 06.10.2022 he was going from his native village Boirbhandi to village Bihajhar sitting as pillion on motorcycle No. CG 06/GS-8826. When he was on the way, non- applicant No.1 driving Innova Car No. OD 26/B-2222 rashly and negligently dashed the motorcycle due to which Toran Sahu suffered serious injures on his head, right leg and near right shoulder . He was taken to Govt. Hospital Bagbahara for treatment in a critical condition . Seeing his conditions, he was taken to Narayana Hospital Raipur for -3- better treatment where he remained admitted from 06.10.2022 to 27.10.2022. During treatment, his right leg was operated and a metal rod was implanted in it and fracture of right shoulder was united was joined by placing a plate in right clavicle bone. At the time of accident applicant was an 18 years young boy, was earning Rs.24,000/- per month by doing the work of two-wheeler Mechanic. Due to serious injures he sustained in the accident he became unable to stand sit walk and do any kind of work independently. He prayed for grant of total compensation of Rs.48,60,000/- from non-applicants under different heads. 3. No written statement was filed by non –applicants No. 1, 2 & 4, they were proceeded ex-parte in the claim proceeding. 4. Non-applicant No.3/insurer of the offending vehicle Innova No. OD 26- B-2222 by filing its written statement denied the pleadings made in the claim application and pleaded inter alias that since at the the time of accident non-applicant No.1 did not have a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle, there was breach of condition of insurance policy. In the accident, there was contributory negligence on the part of driver of motorcycle also, hence, non-applicant No.3 is not liable to pay any compensation. 5. Non-applicant No.5/ insurer of motorcycle No CG 06-GS-8826 by filing its written statement pleaded that said motorcycle was not insured with it. Offending vehicle Innova No. OD 26-B-2222 was plied without registration and fitness certificate in violation of conditions of insurance -4- policy. Driver of the offending Innova was not possessing driving licence. No offence was registered against driver of the motorcycle as he was not at any fault. Respondent No.5 insurance company of motorcycle has been unnecessarily impleaded. On the motorcycle, more persons than its seating capacity were travelling, therefore, non- applicant No.5 is not liable to pay any amount of compensation to claimant. Provision under Section 134 (c) of the Act of 1988 was not complied. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal, on appreciation of pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that on the date of accident, offending vehicle was being driven by non-applicant No.1 rashly and negligently, due to which, an accident occurred in which Toran Sahu suffered grievous injuries. Recording a finding that breach of conditions of the insurance policy was not found proved, held non- applicant No.3 liable to pay the amount of compensation. Assessing income of the appellant/claimant as Rs.8000/- per month, calculated amount of compensation under different heads, awarded total compensation of Rs.5,11,582/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that amount of compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is less in the facts of case. Income of the claimant has been assessed on lower side. Claimant suffered grievous injury over his person and also underwent operation twice one for fracture of clavicle bone and other for fracture of femur. Learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding of Rs.8000/- under the head loss of income for one month only. Amount awarded under head "pain and -5- suffering" is also on lower side. Looking to the nature of injury suffered by appellant, compensation under the head of 'grievous injury ' also ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Learned counsel for respective respondents would oppose the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that claimant has been awarded compensation on all heads for which he is entitled for. Award of compensation is just and proper which does not call for any interference. 9.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused record of claim case. 10. So far as submission of learned counsel for the appellant of assessing monthly income is concerned, in the claim application appellant/claimant pleaded that he was working as a two-wheeler Mechanic and earning Rs.24,000/- per month. However, learned Claims Tribunal, in absence of sufficient evidence adduced by the claimant regarding his nature of work and income has assessed the income as Rs.8000/- on notional basis. Even if claimant failed to establish his income then also his income is to be assessed considering the wages prevailing, price index, cost of living or as per the minimum wages notified under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Though the appellant has not placed on record notification issued by the State Govt. of Orissa fixing the minimum wages for the State including area of which claimant is resident of, however, keeping in mind the minimum wage fixed by the State of Chhattisgarh, I find it -6- appropriate to assess income of appellant/claimant as Rs.9000/- per month. Claimant remained admitted in hospital form 06.10.2022 till 27.10.2022 for his treatment. Looking to the date of accident, period for which he remained admitted in the hospital and nature of treatment taken, claimant might not have worked for considerable time after discharge from hospital. Therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs.27,000/- (9000 x 3) under the head- loss of income for 3 months. It is ordered accordingly. 11. From perusal of the medical document available on record it is appearing that claimant has underwent operation twice one for reunion of clavicle bone and other for reunion of femur. Therefore, looking to the nature of injury suffered by him, I find it appropriate to award Rs.20,000/- towards grievous injury suffered by claimant. Amount awarded under head of pains and suffering is also enhanced to Rs.35,000/- from Rs.25,000/-. 12. Claimant will further be entitled for compensation under head of medical expenses, conveyance expenses, special diet, attendant as awarded by Claims Tribunal. 13. For the foregoing discussions, I find it appropriate to re-compute the amount of compensation as under:- S. N. Heads Compensation 1. Loss of Income for 3 months : Rs. 27,000 (9000 x 3) 2. Medical Expenses : (+) Rs. 4,53,582 -7- 3 Special Diet 4. Conveyance/Transportation 5. 6. 7. Attendant Pains and Suffering Grievous injury Total compensation : : : : : : (+) Rs. 5,000 (+) Rs. 20,000 (+) Rs. 10,000 (+) Rs. 35,000 (+) Rs. 20,000 Rs. 5,70,582 14.Now the appellant/claimant is awarded total compensation of Rs. 5,70,582/- instead of Rs.5,11,582/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. 15.Aforementioned enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Any amount of compensation already paid to the claimants shall be adjustable from the total amount of compensation which has now been calculated and awarded by this Court. Rest of conditions of impugned award shall remain intact.f 2 Sd/- Sd/-d/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Praveen