Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh v. 1. Gaurav Khapade S/o Rajendra Prasad Khapade Aged About 22 Years R/o Bhibhadhi, Thana
Case Details
Page No.1 2025:CGHC:13539 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1075 of 2020 1. Uttamchand S/o Late Tikamchand Aged About 43 Years Cast Golcha (Jain), R/o Village Donger Dula, P.S. Nagari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh., District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1. Gaurav Khapade S/o Rajendra Prasad Khapade Aged About 22 Years R/o Bhibhadhi, Thana And Tahsil Narharpur, District Kanker Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of The Vehicle),
Legal Reasoning
2. Smt. Anita Sori W/o Late Tej Kumar Sori Aged About 55 Years 3. Hemendra Sori S/o Late Tej Kumar Sori Aged About 22 Years 4. Damini Sori D/o Late Tej Kumar Sori Aged About 20 Years 5. Harish Sori S/o Late Tej Kumar Sori Aged About 27 Years All are R/o Village Bhurshi Dongrie, P.S. Sihawa, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. Owners of vehicles. 6. Divisional Manager Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Balak Chowk, M. B. Trade, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh .. Respondent(s) _________________________________________________________ For Appellant For Respondent No.1 to 5 For Respondent No.6 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate : Mr. K.K. Prajapati, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 21/03/2025 Page No.2 1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2020, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing this appeal. 2. For the reasons assigned in the application, it is allowed. Delay in preferring this appeal is hereby condoned. 3. With the consent of the parties, the appeal is being heard finally at the admission stage itself. 4. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Additional Motor Accidental Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 28.2.2019 passed in Claim Case No.22/17. 5. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 23.8.2016 appellant was coming towards Dongardula from Nagri on his motorcycle bearing registration number CG05-S-3559, when he reached ahead of Tallewar Petrol Pump, the vehicle bearing registration number CG05-X-6955, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver – non-applicant No.1, came to appellant’s side and caused accident, as such, he sustained grievous injuries. He was taken to the District Hospital, Dhamtari and looking to his critical condition, he was immediately admitted in Christian Hospital, Dhamtari and thereafter he was admitted in VY Hospital, Raipur where he underwent surgery and a rod was inserted in his right thigh. Accident was reported in concerned police station based on which offence was registered against the Page No.3 non-applicant No.1. 6. Claimant/appellant herein filed claim application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.31,25,000/- under various heads on the ground that prior to accident, he was hale and healthy person, running a grocery shop and earning Rs.20-25,000/- per month, but after the incident, he has become permanently disabled and unable to earn. 7. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 (a) to 2 (d) / respondents No.1 to 5 herein resisted the claim by filing their reply. It was pleaded by them that the claim application is filed by appellant on false grounds, accident has not been caused by non-applicant No.1. In case any liability to pay compensation is fastened, then the insurance company is liable to indemnify the same. 8. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company also submitted its written statement denying the averments made in claim application. It was pleaded that the appellant himself was responsible for the accident, therefore, non-applicants are not liable to pay any compensation to him. On the date of accident, the appellant does not have valid license to drive the category of vehicle which he was driving. 9. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has partly allowed claim application and awarded compensation Rs.4,64,119/- along with interest @ 6% p.a. The Claims Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. Page No.4 10. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellant submits that looking to the nature of injuries and period of treatment of appellant as inpatient, the amount awarded under the head grievous injuries, special diet, pains and sufferings is on lower side. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced suitably. 11. Per contra, learned counsel for respondents argue that the amount of compensation as assessed and granted by the learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference. They pray for dismissal of the present appeal. They, however, submit that in case the amount of compensation is enhanced, interest for the period of delay may not be awarded. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. At the outset, it is pointed out by learned counsel for respondent No.3 that there is no mention of respondent No.3 Insurance Company in the cause title of impugned award. True it is that the particulars of Insurance Company has not been mentioned in the cause title of the impugned award, but perusal of memo of appeal as well as claim application filed before the Claims Tribunal, shows that the Oriental Insurance Company Limited India, Dhamtari has been impleaded as a party. The Claims Tribunal while allowing claim application in part has fastened the liability upon the Oriental Insurance Company Limited India, Dhamtari to Page No.5 satisfy the awarded amount. Hence, this is clearly a typographical error. Even on being asked by the Court, learned counsel representing respondent No.3-Insurance Company, does not dispute the factum of accident and liability of insurance company to pay the amount of compensation. 14. Document Ex.P-144 is the discharge ticket of Christian Hospital,Dhamtari, according to which, appellant was admitted on 23.8.2016 and thereafter referred to higher hospital for treatment. Medical Certificate (Ex.P-136) is issued by VY Hospital, Dhamtari to the effect that appellant was under treatment and he remain admitted from 24.8.2016 to 18.9.2016 for treatment of multiple fractures. In the Discharge summary (Ex.P-141), final diagnosis noted is “multiple ribs fracture with fracture of clavicle bone’. As per history of presenting complaints mentioned in discharge summary, appellant was having breathing difficulty, pain and swelling in left shoulder joint. Discharge summary shows that the appellant was prescribed medicines and advised follow-up/review after seven days. 15. Thus, looking to the treatment papers, period of treatment and nature of grievous injuries, especially fracture of ribs and clavicle bone, which are serious injuries, it appears that appellant must have taken long time to recover and during that period he must have suffered great pain and suffering; further considering that appellant must have been advised to take special diet for speedy recovery, in the considered opinion of this Court, the lump sum Page No.6 amount of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the heads ‘grievous injuries, special diet; pains & sufferings’ is liable to be enhanced. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- for grievous injuries; Rs.30,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.20,000/- for special diet, thereby making the total compensation Rs.5,34,119/- (434119+50000+30000+20000). This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application till its payment. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 16.In view of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Lakkamma vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. reported in (2021) 20 SCC 797, it is directed that the appellant will not be entitled for the interest on the additional amount of compensation for the delayed period, which is of 448 days. 17.In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Date: 2025.03.25 15:26:07 +0530 roshan/-