Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - Pradeep Singh S/o - Suchchasingh Sikkh Aged About 30 Years R/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33335 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1637 of 2019 1 - Mukesh Kumar Bareth S/o - Pradeep Kumar Aged About 30 Years R/o - Village Bartunga Post Devarghata Tahsil Dabhara District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant Versus 1 - Pradeep Singh S/o - Suchchasingh Sikkh Aged About 30 Years R/o - Balrampur, Police Station Kumadh, District Gurdaspur (Punjab) At Present Balvindar Singh, Garage Tatibandh Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Balvindar Singh S/o - Dalbir Singh Aged About 30 Years R/o - Lopa Pakiwan , District Gurdaspur (Punjab) At Present Balvindar Singh, Garage Tatibandh Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Trailer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Micro Office Sakti Raiway Station Dharamshala, Railway Station Road Sakti Tahsil Sakti District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company), District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Ms. Swati Agrawal, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY Order On Board 16/07/2025 2 1. This appeal is filed by the appellants seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 27.04.2019 passed by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, District – Janjgir - Champa (C.G.) in M.A.C.T. Case No. 19/2018. 2. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 29.07.2017 at around 07:15 P.M., when appellant along with one Pardesh Bareth was going towards his home at Village Bartunga from Kharsiya on his motorcycle and when they reached near Village Anjoripali, Dabhra Road Ricemill, at that time, one Trailor bearing registration no. PB 06 V 7664 (hereinafter referred to as the offending vehicle) which was being driven by the Respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motorcycle of the applicant and caused accident. In the said accident, applicant suffered serious injuries, he was taken to hospital for treatment and thereafter, he was referred to District Hospital, Raigarh. From District Hospital, Raigarh, he was referred to Shri Balaji Institute of Medical Science Pvt. Ltd. Subsequent to the said accident, an FIR was registered against the Respondent No. 1 for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 337, 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. 3. In the claim application, the appellants/claimants have pleaded that due to motor accidental injuries, he suffered permanent disability and is unable to perform his regular activities. The applicant has suffered financial loss due to the said injuries and claimed compensation of Rs. 60,60,000/- 4. Non-applicants No. 1 & 2 were proceeded ex parte. 3 5. The Non-applicant No. 3/Insurance Company submitted its reply denying the pleadings made in claim application and pleaded that the accident occurred between two vehicles, but the applicant has not impleaded the insurer of the motorcycle as party in the claim application. Accident occurred due to own negligence of the applicant, he was not possessing valid and effective driving license on the date of accident and was driving the motorcycle without wearing helmet. The Non-applicant No. 1 was not possessing valid and effective driving license, there was no permit and fitness certificate of offending vehicle. It was plied in breach of conditions of insurance policy and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to satisfy the amount of compensation. 6. Learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and evidence brought on record by respective parties had recorded a finding that accident was a result of rash and negligent driving of Non- applicant No. 1 driver of tractor causing grievous injuries. Breach of policy conditions of the insurance policy of offending tractor was not found proved. Computed and awarded total sum of Rs. 2,56,844/- as compensation. Fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Non-Applicant No. 3/Insurance Company. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this appeal is filed on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded the amount of medical bills as mentioned in Ex. 99, Ex. 100, Ex. 48, Ex. 49, Ex. 50, Ex. 53, Ex. 54, Ex. 55, Ex. 68 and Ex. 69. He fairly submitted that the compensation on other heads awarded is just and proper. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company would oppose the submission of the counsel for 4 the appellants and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal considered all the documentary evidence produced by claimants and awarded all admissible medical bills. For non-awarding the aforementioned medical bills exhibited, reason has been assigned that those bills are the joint bills. Hence, there is no scope of enhancement of the amount of compensation. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused record of the claim case. 10. It is not in dispute that the appellant suffered grievous injuries over his left ankle with compound fracture, dislocation of left ankle with bone loss. He was initially admitted in the hospital from 03.07.2017 to 11.09.2017, claimant/appellant has enclosed the copy of bills, some of them were not awarded. Details of the medical bills not awarded is mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Perusal of which, would show that the Ex. P-48 to Ex. P/50 are the bills towards the purchase of medicines and other articles in which, name of the claimant is mentioned as Mukesh Kumar Bareth and the doctor’s name is mentioned as Dr. S.B.S.H Hospital. Perusal of the said bills would show that it bears the seal and signature of a person who received the amount and it is with regard to the purchase of medicine and other articles used for treatment of the appellant/claimant. The bill amount is Rs. 16652.57/- (2339.50+6675.72+7637.35). 11.Similarly, Ex. P/53 to Ex. P/55 are also the joint bills of purchase of medicines and other usable. In the bill, there is mention of carry- forward and the said amount is also mentioned in the top of the subsequent bill which shows that the paper in the printing machine may be small and therefore, the bill has been printed in part, however, in the 5 last, aggregate amount was computed of all the bills and the amount as mentioned in Ex. P/53 to Ex. P/55 is 10,608/-. 12. Similarly, for not considering the exhibits i.e. Ex. P/68, Ex. P/69 and Ex. P/99 and Ex. P/100 bills, the Claims Tribunal has only mentioned that they are joint bills. That ground itself, will not be sufficient to discard the bills which have been actually paid by the appellant during his treatment. 13. The object of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is to award just and fair compensation to the injured or the claimants. Considering the documents enclosed along with the claim application and the finding of the learned Claims Tribunal, I am of the view that the Claims Tribunal erred in discarding the bills forming part of Ex. P-48 to Ex. P/50, Ex. P/53 to Ex. P/55, Ex. P/68, Ex. P/69 and Ex. P/99 and Ex. P/100. 14. It is held that the Claimant/Appellant will be entitled for the amount as mentioned in the Ex. P-48 to Ex. P/50, Ex. P/53 to Ex. P/55, Ex. P/68, Ex. P/69 and Ex. P/99 and Ex. P/100 which comes to Rs. 37521.94/- (16652.57+10608+3120.37+3360+3781). 15. For the foregoing reason, this Court proposes to recalculate the amount of compensation payable to the appellants. 16. Thus, total amount of compensation comes to Rs.2,94,365.94/- (2,56,844 + 37,521.94). This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 6 17. Any amount already paid to Claimant/Appellant as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above.
Decision
18. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. 19. Certified copy as per rules. Dey Sd/--/-/--------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge