1. Dinesh Tiwari S/o Sadan Lal Tiwari, Aged About 28 Years R/o Shiv Nagar v. 1. Praveen Kumar Shrivas S/o
Case Details
Page No.1 2025:CGHC:16511 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1144 of 2020 1. Dinesh Tiwari S/o Sadan Lal Tiwari, Aged About 28 Years R/o Shiv Nagar, Bandha Talaab Ward, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1. Praveen Kumar Shrivas S/o Shri Ramcharan Shrivas, Aged About 36 Years R/o Ward No. 16, Ek Batti Panch Rasta Chowk, Dongargarh, Thana Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG) (Driver of Car No.CG08-W-3643), 2. Sunil Kumar Jain S/o Late Harlal Jain, Aged About 56 Years R/o Annapurna Society Manager, Near Jain Mandir, Golbazar, Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Owner of Car No. CG08-W-3643). 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Bhilai Through New India Office, Chauhan Estate, First Floor, above the State Bank of India, G.E. Road, Supela, Bhilai, District - Durg Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Car No. CG08-W-3643). .. Respondents -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant For Respondent No.1 & 2 For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Siddhant Das, Advocate : Mr. Navin Shukla, Advocate : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Adv -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 08/04/2025 1. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 23.1.2020 passed in Claim Case No.65/2017.
Legal Reasoning
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that on 20.9.2016 appellant was Page No.2 going towards Titurdih from Dhamdha Naka on his motorcycle bearing registration number CG07-AJ-1726, when he reached in front of Surya Vihar, the vehicle bearing registration number CG08-W-3643, being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver–non-applicant No.1, dashed motorcycle and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered grievous injuries including fracture in left leg, right leg and waist. Accident was reported in Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durg based on which Crime No.472/2016 was registered against non-applicant No.1 for alleged offence under Sections 279 & 337 of IPC. 3. Claimant/appellant herein filed application claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.40,00,000/- under various heads on the ground that prior to accident, he was able bodied healthy person, working as Salesman in Ujjivan Small Finance Bank, earning Rs.9687/- per month and on account of permanent disability suffered by him in the said accident, he is unable to efficiently perform even routine works. 4. Non-applicant No.1 & 2 filed their reply and denied the claim of appellant. It was pleaded by them that accident was not caused by the offending vehicle and criminal case against respondent No.1 was registered on the basis of suspicion. Rider of motorcycle himself was riding motorcycle negligently, as a result he lost control over motorcycle and fell down. Appellant Page No.3 ought to have proved the permanent disability by producing the documents of treating doctor. On the date of accident, respondent No.1 was possessing valid driving license to drive offending vehicle, which was duly insured with respondent No.3 and therefore, if any compensation is to be awarded to claimant, then the same is payable by insurance company. 5. Non-applicant No.3- Insurance Company also submitted its written statement denying the averments made in claim application. It was pleaded that insurance company was not informed about the accident. Accident was outcome of contributory negligence. Appellant has not filed certificate of disability issued by the competent Medical Board. Exaggerated compensation is claimed by appellant. As there was violation of conditions of insurance policy, therefore, non-applicant No.1 and 2 are liable to pay compensation to the claimant/ appellant. 6. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating the pleadings and evidence placed on record (oral and documentary both) by the respective parties has arrived at a conclusion that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1 in which appellant has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20%; there was no element of contributory negligence and accordingly, partly allowed claim application, awarded compensation Rs.6,00,095/- along with interest @ 7% p.a.
Legal Reasoning
7. Learned counsel for the claimants/appellant submits that at the time of accident, appellant was 28 years of age and was in Page No.4 good health, he was working as Salesman in a Finance Bank and in support of his income has also produced salary slip. However, the Claims Tribunal has erroneously held that the appellant failed to prove his income as per law and assessed monthly income of appellant on the basis of wage rate prescribed for an unskilled worker under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. He further submits that permanent disability to the extent of 27% has been duly proved by the appellant, but the Claims Tribunal has erroneously held that appellant suffered permanent disability of 20%. The amount under other heads like pains & suffering, loss of income during period of treatment; attendant and special diet are on lower and deserves to be enhanced suitably. Further, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of amenities in life. Therefore, he prays that the present appeal be allowed and compensation be enhanced, as per latest law. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.3 Insurance Company argues that amount of compensation as assessed and granted by the learned Claims Tribunal does not call for any interference. He prays for dismissal of the present appeal. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. In the instant case the factum of accident is not disputed. Sufferance of injuries by claimant are also not disputed. 11. As regard income of appellant, perusal of the impugned award would show that the Claims Tribunal disbelieved the version of Page No.5 appellant that he was working as Salesman in a Ujjivan Small Finance Bank and treating him to be an unskilled worker assessed his income on the basis of wage rate fixed by the Collector District Durg vide order dated 5.7.2016 for unskilled worker. True it is that appellant has pleaded and stated that he was working as Salesman in a Financial Bank and also filed salary slip for the month of August 2016. However, the appellant has not examined his employer or any other staff from the office of employer to prove his employment or such salary slip. The reliability of salary slip produced by appellant is further doubtful as he has filed xerox of salary slip and not the original one. Thus, the salary slip or employment of the appellant with alleged finance bank is thus unreliable. Hence, this Court is of the view that the Claims Tribunal has rightly assessed income of appellant at Rs.6,000/- per month and it is hereby affirmed. 12. Appellant has claimed to have suffered permanent disability to the extent of 27% and in support thereof, he has produced the permanent disability certificate (Ex.P-71) and in order to prove the same has examined Dr. S.D. Bhupendra (AW-2). This witness has admitted in cross-examination that assessment of 27% permanent disability is done based on capacity of both legs and the percentage of disability with reference to whole body would be lesser than 27%. Taking into consideration the statement of the doctor (AW-2), the Claims Tribunal has assessed permanent disability at 20%. Considering the nature of injuries sustained by appellant i.e. necrosis of left hip bone Page No.6 (avscular necrosis) and joining of right thigh bone in crooked manner, coupled with statement of the doctor (AW-2), this Court is of the opinion that the percentage of disability taken as 20% by the Claims Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of material available on record and it does not warrant any interference. 13. Believing the medical bills (Ex.P-8 to Ex.P-12, Ex.P-14 to Ex.P-70), produced by appellant, which could not be controverted by opposite side, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.52,875/- for medical treatment expenses, which does not call for any interference. Further, considering the document of Ex.P-10 wherein it is mentioned that appellant would require surgery in future, a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards future medical expenses has been awarded by the Claims Tribunal, which also does not call for any interference. 14. Looking to the nature and grievousness of injuries suffered by appellant i.e. necrosis of left hip bone (avscular necrosis) and joining of right thigh bone in crooked manner, period of hospitalization of appellant and the fact that even after surgery, he did not recover fully and would require surgical interventions in future, in the opinion of this Court, amount awarded by Claims Tribunal under the head of pain and suffering; attendant and special diet requires to be enhanced suitably. Accordingly, it is ordered that appellant is entitled for a sum of Rs.40,000/- for pain and sufferings; Rs.5,000/- for attendant; Rs.15,000/- for special diet and Rs.40,000/- towards grievous injuries. Page No.7 15. Due to necrosis of left hip bone (avscular necrosis) and joining of right thigh bone in crooked manner and permanent disability to the extent of 20%, the claimant/appellant must have suffered loss of amenities and comforts in life, as such, towards loss of amenities and comforts in life, he is entitled for a compensation of a sum of 40,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 16. Accordingly, the appellant is awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- towards pain and sufferings; Rs.40,000/- for grievous injuries; Rs.5000/- for attendant, Rs.15,000/- towards special diet Rs.40,000/- towards loss of amenities in life is awarded to the appellant. This amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 7% p.a. from the date of application till its realization. Now appellant will be entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 7,03,595/ (3,42,720+ 52875 + 18000 + 40000 + 40000+ 5000 + 15000 + 150000 + 40000). Other conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI roshan/-
Decision
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