Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:22671 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1548 of 2019 Anup Kumar Choubey S/o Late Ramvichar Choubey Aged About 40 Years R/o Godhanpur Ward No. 5 Police Station Gandhinagar Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh versus --- Appellant 1 - Suresh Kumar Minj S/o Yakub Minj Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Talsera Post Balisankara Police Station And Tahsil Talsera District Sundargarh Odisha (Driver) 2 - Devkaran Prasad Jaiswal S/o R.S. Sahu R/o Ranibagicha Raurkela Road Sundargarh Odisha (Owner) 3 - The Branch Manager The New India Insurance Company Ltd Division Office Sada Complex Transport Nagar Korba Chhattisgarh Branch Office The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Near Ambedkar Chowk Ambika Petrol Pump Campus Ambikapur Police Station And Tahsil Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh (Insurer). --- Respondents For Appellant : Ms. Akanksha Vishwakarma on behalf of Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 & 2 : Ms. Surabhi Yadav, Advocate on behalf of For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate Mr. Hemant Agrawal, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 09/06/2025 1. Claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Ambikapur, District – Sarguja (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.04.2019, passed 2 in Claim Case No.212/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarded Rs.6,50,777/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that on 24.03.2017 at about 9.30 AM, when the appellant was walking and going to Ring Road Namna at the same time, respondent No.1 by driving the Bus bearing registration No. OD-16A-5155 in a rash and negligent manner dashed the appellant from behind due to which appellant fell down on road and suffered severe injuries on his both legs, waist, hands, head, face and on other parts of body. He was immediately taken to Mission Hospital, Ambikapur where he was admitted from 24.03.2017 till 25.03.2017 and thereafter looking to his severe condition, he was taken to Jivan Jyoti Hospital, Ambikapur for better treatment wherein he was admitted from 25.03.2017 till 12.04.2017 and took treatment. He thereafter was admitted to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur from 22.04.2017 till 23.05.2017 and took treatment. 3. Appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.16,20,000/- pleading therein that at the time of accident, the appellant was running Auto Riksha for earning his livelihood. On account of motor-accidental injuries, he is now unable to perform his work in the manner as he was doing prior to accident and thus suffered loss of income. Claimant has also sought compensation under all other heads as are available to him like medical expenses, special diet, future medical expenses, pain and sufferings etc. 4. Respondents No.1 and 2 filed their reply denying the allegation made in the claim application. It was pleaded that on the date of incident, the 3 offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant No.3/Insurance Company. The respondent No.1 was having valid and effective driving license at the time of accident. 5. Non-applicant No.3/Insurer of the offending truck denied entire allegation made in the claim application. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to self negligence of the appellant. It was pleaded that Non-applicant No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence and the offending vehicle was being driven in breach of conditions of insurance policy, without any permit and fitness. Application was filed, exaggerating the amount of compensation. 6. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by respective parties, the learned Claims Tribunal held that accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle by non- applicant No.1, due to which appellant suffered grievous injuries. Breach of Policy condition was not found to be proved. Tribunal allowed application in part, awarded total compensation of Rs.6,50,577/- along with interest @ 6% per annum, fastened liability upon non-applicant No.3-Insurance Company to pay the amount of compensation. 7. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal erred in awarding meager amount of compensation overlooking the nature of injury and the period of treatment underwent by the appellant. She also contended that the appellant suffered disability due to the injuries suffered by him in the accident. She next contended that though the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- per month, however, while awarding the 4 compensation for loss of income for the period of 18 months, only Rs.13,500/- has been awarded assessing the loss of income to the extent of 50% which is erroneous in view of the finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal in para 25 of the impugned award. She next contended that the amount of compensation awarded under the head of attendant and mental pain and suffering is also on lower side. Hence, the amount of compensation be suitably enhanced. 8. Learned counsel for the respective respondents opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellant and would submit that the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper. It is contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that the appellant has failed to prove the nature of disability to be permanent in nature. As per the evidence available on record, the Claims Tribunal has rightly concluded that the disability suffered by the appellant is temporary. It is submitted that the impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of facts and evidence brought on record by the respective parties, which does not call for any interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for parties and also perused the documents placed on record. 10. So far as the submission of learned counsel for the appellant with respect to income from the work of auto driving is concerned, the learned Claims Tribunal in absence of specific evidence and the proof of the income, has assessed the income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- per month, which in the facts of the case cannot be said to 5 be on lower side, hence, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal. 11. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.30,000/- for loss of income for a period of two months. From the evidence available on record it is appearing that the date of accident is dated 24.03.2017, the appellant was immediately admitted to Holly Cross Hospital, Ambikapur on 24.03.2017 from where he discharged on 25.03.2017 and thereafter he took treatment as inpatient from 25.03.2017 to 12.04.2017 and thereafter from 22.04.2017 till 23.05.2017. From the evidence it is also appearing that appellant thereafter took treatment as inpatient from 12.07.2017 to 17.07.2017 where the appellant under went plastic surgery. Appellant took treatment as inpatient for about 57 days. Appellant had suffered fracture of right femur and left tibia. The appellant underwent implant over the injuries and therefore, looking to the nature of injury and long treatment taken by the appellant, the appellant could not have performed his duties immediately after the discharge from hospital. He may not have worked for about further period of two months therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the appellant suffered the loss of income for a period of about four months instead of two months as held by the learned Claims Tribunal and accordingly, the amount of compensation towards loss of income for a period of four months is assessed and awarded as Rs.15,000 x 4 = Rs.60,000/-. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal considering the evidence available on record that the appellant suffered 60% temporary disability and further considering the period of treatment as inpatient, the period mention in 6 the disability certificate i.e. for the period of one year, assessed the loss of income to the extent of 50% due to temporary disability suffered by appellant, which in the opinion of this Court is just and proper. However, the learned Claims Tribunal has considered the income of the appellant as Rs.1,500/- per month which in view of the finding recorded in para 25 appears to be erroneous. In para 25 of the impugned award, the learned Claims Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant as Rs.15,000/- per month and not Rs.1,500/- per month. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court for the purpose of calculating the loss of income due to the temporary disability suffered by the appellant for the period of 18 months, the amount towards loss of income comes to Rs.15000 x 18 = 2,70,000/- and after deducting 50% on account of the temporary nature of the disability, the compensation towards loss of income for 18 months comes to Rs.1,35,000/-. 13. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence available on record I do not find any error in the award of Rs.15,000/- & Rs.15,000/- awarded towards special diet and attendant. The learned Claims Tribunal has further rightly awarded Rs.30,000/- towards pains and suffering, which also does not call for any interference. 14. Dr. J.K. Bhutani (A.W.-2) in his evidence has stated that if the appellant undergo two operations, the percentage of disability may be reduced. From the aforementioned evidence of the doctor, it is appearing that the appellant requires further treatment (operation). The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- for future 7 treatment. Considering the date of accident, the rise in price index and cost of the medical expenses, in the opinion of this Court the award Rs.20,000/- towards future treatment in the facts of the case and the evidence of Dr. J.K. Bhutani (A.W.-2) appears to be on lower side. Considering the entirety of the facts and circumstances of the case, evidence of the doctor as also the nature of injuries I find it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- for future treatment instead of Rs.20,000/-. The appellant will also be entitled for a sum of Rs.5,13,127/- towards the medical expenses as awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal as the learned counsel for the appellant could not be able to point out any error in the amount awarded towards medical expenses. The appellant is also entitled to get a sum of Rs.13,950/- towards conveyance/ ambulance charges as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly. 15. For the forgoing discussions the amount of compensation to be awarded to the appellant required recomputation, which is as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. For medical expenses 2. For loss of income for 4 months 3. Loss of income due to temporary disabilty for the period of 18 months after deducting 50% 4. For special diet 5. For attendant 6. Pain and suffering 7. For future medical expenses : : : : : : : 5,13,127.00 60,000.00 1,35,000.00 15,000.00 15,000.00 30,000.00 50,000.00 8 8. For conveyance expenses Total compensation : : 13,950.00 8,32,077.00 16.
Decision
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.8,32,077.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram