Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by ANJANI KUMAR ALLENA Date: 2025.01.31 16:21:08 +0530 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Gautam Ojha S/o Late Rajnarayan Ojha, R/o Village Shivnagar, Ring Road No. 1, Mathpuraina Raipur, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh MAC No. 686 of 2016 ...Appellant/Claimant versus 1 - Loknath S/o Baijnath, Occupation Driver, R/o Quarter No.883, Ward No. 29, Through T. Singh, Near Minocha Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.............Non Applicant No. 1, 2 - Raviraj Singh, S/o O. P. Singh, Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Quarter No. 883, Ward No. 29, Through T. Singh, Near Minocha Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh .......Non Applicant No. 2, 3 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Lal Ganga Mall, G. E. Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh........Non Applicant No. 3, --- Respondent/Non-applicants MAC No. 687 of 2016 Smt. Kalavati Ojha W/o Late Rajnarayan Ojha, Aged About 57 Years R/o Village Shivnagar, Ring Road No. 1, Mathpuraina Raipur, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --Appellant/Claimant Versus 1 - Loknath S/o Baijnath, Occupation Driver, R/o Quarter No. 883, Ward No. 29, Through T. Singh, Near Minocha Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.............Non Applicant No. 1, 2 - Raviraj Singh, S/o O. P. Singh, Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Quarter No. 883, Ward No. 29, Through T. Singh, Near Minocha Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh .......Non Applicant No. 2, 3 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manger, Divisional Office, Lal Ganga Mall, G. E. Road Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh........Non Applicant No. 03, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondents/Non-applicants MAC No. 688 of 2016 Salman Khan S/o Mohd. Aslam, R/o Ring Road No. 1, Mathpuraina Raipur, Tahsil Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh ---Appellant/Claimant Versus 2 1 - Loknath S/o Baijnath, Occupation Driver, R/o Quarter No. 883, Ward No. 29, Through T. Singh, Near Minocha Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.............Non Applicant No. 1 2 - Raviraj Singh, S/o O. P. Singh, Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Quarter No. 883, Ward No. 29, Through T. Singh, Near Minocha Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh .......Non Applicant No. 2 , 3 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Lal Ganga Mall, G. E. Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh........Non Applicant No. 3, --- Respondents/Non-applicants MAC No. 689 of 2016 Smt. Reena Ojha W/o Gautam Ojha, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Shivnagar, Ring Road No. 1, Mathpuraina Raipur, Tahsil Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh, ---Appellant/Claimant Versus 1 - Loknath S/o Bajinath, Occupation Driver, R/o Qurater No. 883, Ward No. 29, Through T. Singh, Near Minocha Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh......Non Applicant No. 1. 2 - Raviraj Singh, S/o O. P. Singh, Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Qurater No. 883, Ward No. 29, Through T. Singh, Near Minocha Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh.........Non Applicant No. 2, 3 - I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Lal Ganga Mall, G. E. Road, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh........Non Applicant No. 3, --- Respondents/Non-applicants MAC No. 690 of 2016
Legal Reasoning
Miss Anuja Pandey D/o Shri Ram Krishna Pandey, Aged About 22 Years R/o Shiv Mandir, Ring Road No. 1, Mathpurena, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant/Claimant Versus 1 - Loknath S/o Brjnath, R/o Quarter No. 883, Ward No. 29, Through T. Singh, Near Minocha Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh........Non Applicant No. 1. 2 - Raviraj Singh, S/o O. P. Singh, R/o Quarter No. 883, Ward No. 29, Through T. Singh, Near Minocha Petrol Pump, Telibandha, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh.........Non Applicant No. 2. 3 - ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Lalganga Shoping Mall, G. E. Road, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.........Non Applicant No. 3. --- Respondents/Non-applicants For respective appellants : Shri Pawan Kesharwani and Ms. Aditi Diwan, For Respondents 1 & 2 : None, though served. Advocates in all the appeals. For Respondent 3 : Shri Sourabh Sharma and Shri Chitram Sahu, Advocates in all the appeals. 3 (HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RADHAKISHAN AGRAWAL) Judgment on Board 31/01/2025 1. Since all above captioned appeals arise out of the same accident that occurred on 20.04.2012, therefore, they are being heard together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These are the claimants’ appeals for enhancement of compensation of Rs.4,87,174/- (Gautam Ojha), Rs.2,15,794/- (Smt. Kalavati Ojha), Rs.99,292/- (Salman Khan), Rs.2,30,351/- (Reena Ojha) and Rs.1,02,410/- (Anuja Pandey) awarded by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) (for short, the Tribunal) in Claim Case No.227/2012 (MAC No.686/2016), Claim Case No.226/2012 (MAC No. 687/2016), Claim Case No.225/2012 (MAC No.688/2016), Claim Case No.223/2012 (MAC No.689/2016) and Claim Case No.224/2012 (MAC No.690/2016) vide award dated 19.02.2016. 3. As per averments in claim petitions, on the fateful day of 20.04.2012 at about 01:00 am, all the injured persons were travelling in Maruti Alto Car bearing registration No.C.G./04/HB/7057 and were returning to Raipur from Allahabad and as soon as they reached village Semra, Non-applicant No.1/driver of Truck bearing registration No. C.G. 04/JB/7518 (for short, the offending vehicle) by driving the same in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the said car, as a result of which, all the appellants travelling in the car sustained grievous injuries over their bodies. After primary treatment at Shahdol, they were referred to Ramakrishna Care Hospital, Raipur for further treatment. It is not disputed that Non-applicant No.2 is the owner and the offending vehicle was insured with Non-applicant No.3/insurer. 4. Owing to injuries sustained by claimant – Gautam Ojah, he filed a claim petition seeking total compensation of Rs.15,50,000/- on various heads, inter alia, stating that at the time of accident, he was aged about 28 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month by running a Hardware and Electrical Shop and that time, on account of injuries, 4 he was admitted in Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur from 22.04.2012 to 30.04.2012 and a rod was inserted in his right shoulder by operation. Similarly, injured/claimant Smt. Kalavati Ojha preferred a claim petition seeking total compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- on various heads stating, inter alia, that at the time of accident, she was aged about 60 years and was earning Rs.4,000/- from tailoring and that, she was admitted in Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur from 21.04.2012 to 30.04.2012 and her right shoulder and wrist were operated and rod was inserted. Likewise, injured/claimant Salman Khan also filed a claim petition seeking total compensation of Rs.13,50,000/- on various heads stating therein that at the time of accident, he was aged about 20 years and was earning Rs.4,100/- per month by working as Car driver and he was also admitted in the same Hospital from 22.04.2012 to 26.04.2012 and during that period surgery was done in order to prevent blood from Liver and his lip, elbow and right leg’s knee were treated. Similar claim petition was filed by the injured/claimant Reena Ojha seeking compensation of Rs.13,50,000/-, pleading inter alia, that at the time of accident, she was aged about 27 years and was earning Rs.4,000/- by conducting tuition classes. Owing to accident, she remained in Ramkrishna Care Hospital from 22.04.2012 to 27,.04.2012 and during that period plastic surgery was done on her eyelids and nose in Dr. Kalda Hospital. A claim petition was filed by the injured/claimant – Anuja @ Annu Pandey seeking compensation of Rs.13,50,000/- on various heads, inter alia, pleading that she was aged 22 years at the time of accident and was earning Rs.5,000/- by conducting tuition classes and that she was also admitted in Dr. Kalda Hospital from 22.04.2012 till 27.04.2012 and treatment on her face and skull was done in the said Hospital. 5. After appreciating the evidence, oral as well as documentary, brought on record, the learned Claims Tribunal held Non-applicant No.1/driver - Loknath liable for cause of accident; on account of such accident all the claimants sustained grievous injuries 5 including permanent disablement and the offending vehicle was not being driven in violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded total compensation, as mentioned in para 5 of this judgment, along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realisation while fastening the liability upon the insurance company as it could not prove the violation of policy conditions. 6. Learned counsel for the respective appellants in all the appeals submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has committed an illegality in assessing meager monthly income of the injured/claimants. He further submits that the Tribunal also erred in not awarding future prospects. He further contends that Claim Case Nos.227/2012 and 226/2012, the Tribunal has fallen in error in reducing permanent disability as against the assessment done by the Dr. A.A.Saifi. On these premises, he urged that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal may suitably be enhanced. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurer of the offending vehicle in all the appeals, while admitting that no separate appeals have been preferred against the impugned award, submits that although the offending vehicle was insured with the insurance company, but the learned Claims Tribunal, after due appreciation of the evidence and material documents, was justified in awarding fair and reasonable compensation in all claim cases, which does not call for interference. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. MAC No. 686/2016 (Claim Case No.227/2012) 9. In this case, perusal of record coupled with the impugned award would reveal that claimant – Gautam Ojha got injuries including fracture and for that he was admitted in Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur from 22.04.2012 to 30.04.2012, i.e., for a period of 9 days for treatment of his right thigh and right shoulder, which was operated and rod was inserted in both the places. A.W.2 Dr. A.A.Saifi, after treating him, has found weakness in muscles of right thigh and shoulder and after examining him, he found that injured/claimant – Gautam Ojha suffered 35% permanent disability 6 on account of injuries on his right shoulder and leg and gave certificate vide Ex.P.34 in that regard. However, the Tribunal, looking to the injuries suffered by the claimant and the nature of his work, assessed 20% permanent disability in respect of the entire body, which in the considered opinion of this Court is just and proper. 10. Now I shall focus on the assessment of monthly income of Rs.4,500/- made by the Tribunal, which also appears to be just and reasonable and does not require interference. But, the Tribunal has erred in not granting any amount towards future prospects. By applying the decision of Branch Manager, Cholamandalam MS General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Sadhuram Yadav and others, passed in MAC Nos.595 of 2016 and 623 of 2017 on 11.12.2017 reported in MANU/CG/1009/2017, the claimant shall also be entitled to future prospects. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.2,13,574/- towards expenses incurred on treatment, Rs.20,000/- for future treatment, Rs.50,000/- financial loss, physical and mental pain and Rs.20,000/- towards transportation charges and special diet, but no amount under the head ‘Attendant’ was not awarded. After adding future prospects, attendant charges and enhancement in future treatment, the claimant is entitled to receive the additional compensation of Rs.1,03,440/-, the details of which are as under:- S.No. Description 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. Income of the deceased @ Rs.4,500/- per month (Rs.4,500/- x 12) Multiplier of 17 applied to assess total loss of dependency. 20% permanent disability 40% of (3) above to be added towards future prospects Total loss of income For Expenses incurred on treatment as made by the Tribunal For future treatment For Financial loss, physical and mental pain, transportation and special diet. 9. For Attendant Total compensation Amount in Rs. 54,000/- 9,18,000/- 1,83,600/- 73,440/- 2,57,040/- 2,13,574/- 40,000/- 70,000/- 10,000/- 5,90,614/- 7 Award of the learned Tribunal. (-) Enhanced amount by this Court 4,87,174/- 1,03,440/- In this way, the claimant/injured – Gautam Ojha is entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.1,03,440/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. MAC No.687 of 2016 (Claim Case No.226/2012) 11. As regards compensation assessed in the present case, the Tribunal, considering the nature of work, fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/-, but did not award any amount under future prospects. The approach of the Tribunal in fixing the meagre monthly income and in not awarding future prospects is not correct. The accident occurred in 2012 and even if the provisions of Minimum Wages Act are applied, then an unskilled labourer could have easily earned Rs.4,000/-. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of work and also considering the provisions of Minimum Wages Act, I, therefore, propose to re-assess the compensation by taking the monthly income of the injured as Rs.4,000/- and Rs.48,000/- per annum. As per statement of claimant Smt. Kalavati Ojha, on account of injuries including fracture, she was admitted in Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur for a period of 10 days for treatment and during that period, her right shoulder, which was found to be fractured, and wrist were operated and a rod was inserted. As per statement of Dr. A.A.Saifi, he examined the claimant and after examining, he found permanent disability to the extent of 25%, but the same was not for the whole body. However, the Tribunal did not consider the statement of Dr. A.A. Saifi and on its own, assessed the permanent disability to 10%, which is not sustainable and this Court reassessed the same to be 15% looking to the injuries and also considering the statement of Dr.A.A.Saifi. Further, the Tribunal awarded Rs.1,35,794/- towards expenses incurred on treatment, Rs.20,000/- for future treatment, Rs.50,000/- financial loss, physical and mental pain and Rs.10,000/- towards transportation charges and special diet, but no amount under the head ‘Attendant’ was not awarded. After adding future prospects, attendant charges and enhancement in future treatment, the claimant is entitled to 8 receive the additional compensation of Rs.1,06,280/-, the details of which are as under:- Sl. No. 1. Description Amount in Rs. Income of the deceased @ Rs.4,000/- per month (Rs.4,000/- x 12) 48,000/- 2. Multiplier of 9 applied to assess total loss of 4,32,000/- dependency as the injured was 60 years. 3. 15% permanent disability assessed by this Court 64,800/- 4. 10% of (3) above to be added towards future 6,480/- prospects 5. Total loss of income 71,280/- 6. For Expenses incurred on treatment as made by 1,35,794/- the Tribunal 7. For future treatment 40,000/- 8. For Financial loss, physical and mental pain, 60,000/- transportation and special diet. 9. For Attendant Total compensation Award of the learned Tribunal. (-) Enhanced amount by this Court 15,000/- 3,22,074/- 2,15,794/- 1,06,280/- Accordingly, the claimant/injured – Smt. Kalavati Ojha is entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.1,06,280/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. MAC No.688/2016 (Claim Case No.225/2012) 12. Indisputably, in the said accident, the claimant – Salman Khan also sustained injuries and for proving the said fact, he has filed medical bills, marked as Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.10 and if all total medical bills are considered together, then a sum of Rs.65,772/- would be worked out, but the Tribunal did not take into account the medical bills, marked as Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 and straightaway awarded a sum of Rs.59,292/- towards medical expenses and in addition to that amount, the Tribunal added Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities, mental and physical agony and that, for the pain, inconvenience and loss of earnings of family members and transportation, which in the considered opinion, is just and proper awards. But, the Tribunal has not granted any amount towards attendant and diet. The approach of the Tribunal in not considering 9 the amounts as shown in Ex.P.7 and Ex.P.8 and in not awarding amounts under the heads ‘Attendant and Diet’ is not sustainable. Therefore, looking to the medical bills (Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.10), the injured/claimant would be entitled to Rs.65,772/-. Apart from this amount, the claimant is also entitled to get Rs.10,000/- as additional amount towards attendant and diet. The details of which are as under: Sl. No. Description Amount in Rs. 1. Amount under Medical Bills (Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.10) 65,772/- 2. Towards loss of amenities, mental and physical 20,000/- agony as made by the Tribunal 3. For the pain, inconvenience and loss of earnings of family members as awarded by the Tribunal. 4. Transportation charges as given by the Tribunal 5. Towards attendant and special diet Total compensation Award of the learned Tribunal. (-) Enhanced amount by this Court 10,000/- 10,000/- 10,000/- 1,15,772/- 99,292/- 16,480/- In view of above, the claimant/injured – Salman Khan is entitled to get additional compensation of Rs.16,480/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. MAC No.689 of 2016 (Claim Case No. 223/2012) 13. Admittedly, the claimant/injured – Smt. Reena Ojha sustained injuries on account of accident that took place on 20.04.2012 and she was admitted into Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur, from 22.04.2012 to 27.04.2012 and was also admitted in Dr. Kalda Hospital from 06.05.2012 to 07.05.2012 and again from 13.11.2014 to 15.11.2014. The Tribunal, although held that no permanent disability certificate was produced despite surgery was done over her body in the said Hospital, but considering the nature and extent of injuries, evidence, both orally and documentary, such as, application for treatment (Ex.P.5), M.L.C. report (Ex.P.6), documents related to treatment (Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.31), Final Bill of Ramkrishna Care Hospital Ex.P.32, the Tribunal has further come to conclusion that for the injuries sustained by her in the said accident, she had to be admitted in Ramkrishna Care 10 Hospital, Raipur and Dr. Kalda Hospital, Raipur for better treatment for a period of 11 days and thereafter, assessed and awarded an amount of Rs.1,50,351/- towards expenses incurred on her treatment, Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering, inconvenience and loss amenities, Rs.20,000/- for loss of earnings of her family members and Rs.10,000/- for transportation charges, making the total compensation to Rs.2,30,351/-, but did not consider in awarding amount under the head ‘attendant and Diet’. Therefore, it would be appropriate to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- under such head, which meets the ends of justice. After adding Rs.10,000/- towards attendant and diet, the total compensation payable to the claimant/injured would come to Rs.2,40,351/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.2,30,351/-, after deducting the same from Rs.2,40,351/-, the claimant/injured – Smt. Reena Ojha is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. MAC No.690 of 2016 (Claim Case No. 224/2012) 14. In this case, undisputedly, on account of accident on 20.04.2012, the claimant/injured – Ku. Anuja Pandey received injuries over her head, right hand elbow, face and skull. A bare perusal of evidence on record would reveal that 35 stitches were put on her head and due to the injuries on her face and skull, she took treatment from Dr.Kalda Hospital, Raipur. This apart, after the accident, she remained in Ramkrishna Hospital, Raipur from 22.04.2012 to 27.04.2012. In support of her pleadings and evidence, she has filed documents Ex.P.5 to Ex.P.13. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence and material available on record, assessed and awarded a sum of Rs.42,410/- incurred towards medical expenses, Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities, Rs.20,000/- for loss of earnings of her family members and Rs.10,000/- for transportation charges, making the total compensation to Rs.1,02,410/-, but did not grant any amount towards attendant and special diet and also erred in granting meagre amount towards pain and suffering and loss of amenities. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, 11 nature and extent of injuries, the claimant would further be entitled to get Rs.50,000/- in place of Rs.30,000/-. This apart, it would be appropriate to award an amount of Rs.10,000/- under the head ‘attendant and special diet, which meets the ends of justice. After adding Rs.30,000/-, the claimant/injured held entitled to Rs.1,32,410/-. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.1,02,410/-, after deducting the same from Rs.1,32,410/-, the claimant/injured – Ku. Anuja Pandey is entitled to get an additional compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest as awarded by the Tribunal. 15. In the result, all the above captioned appeals filed by the respective appellants/claimants/injured persons are allowed in part with the modification in the impugned awards to the above extent. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned awards shall remain in tact. Sd/- (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE Anjani