Ugen @ Ishwer Patel, S/o Jangluram Patel, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Rewagahan v. 1 - Pravin Singh Rajput @ Pintu, S/o Purushottam Singh Rajput, Aged About 34
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2025:CGHC:14794 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1599 of 2018 Ugen @ Ishwer Patel, S/o Jangluram Patel, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Rewagahan, Post- Baldevpur, P.S./Tahsil, Khairagarh, District- Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Pravin Singh Rajput @ Pintu, S/o Purushottam Singh Rajput, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village- Singarpur, Post- P.S.- Tahsil- Ghumka, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh.........Driver 2 - Harmit Singh Hora, R/o Ward No. 60, Vishwa Vihar, Kutul Board, Nehru Nagar, P.S. And Post Nehru Nagar, Tahsil Bhilai, District Durg Chhattisgarh...........Owner 3 - The New India Insurance Company Ltd, Through Its Branch Manager, Branch Office- Old Bus Stand, Infront Of United Hospital, P.S.- City Kotwali, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh..............Insurance Company --- Respondents ____________________________________________________________
Legal Reasoning
For Appellant : Ms. Richa Pandey, Advocate. For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None present, though served. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Azad Siddiqui, Advocate. ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 27.03.2025 2 1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Claimant/appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 20.07.2018 passed by the learned Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 41/2017, whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 8,36,900/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till realization, fastening liability on the respondent No. 3/Insurance company. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 16.12.2016, the claimant was traveling from his home Village- Revagram to Tumdilewa along with other persons for his family work, in between, on the way of Kairagarh to Rajnandgaon at Village- Padumtara, in front of Gangai Gas Godam, they stopped their Motorcycle Bearing No. CG-08-V-1333 for attending natural call, at about 12.05 pm their said motorcycle and they were strongly dashed by offending vehicle Fiat Car Bearing Registration No. CG-07-M-3980 which was coming from a wrong side and being driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, the present claimant and his friend namely Ramhu Ram Patel and Dukhuram Patel suffered grievous injuries and ultimately Dukhuram Patel died on the spot itself. Report regarding the alleged accident was lodged at Police Station- Dhumka based upon offence under Sections 279, 337 & 304-A of IPC was registered against the respondent No. 1-driver. 3. On account of aforesaid accident, the present appellant/claimant 3 instituted a claim petition under section 166 of the Act of 1988 by submitting inter alia that at the time of the accident, the claimant, was of 30 years old, was taking care of himself and his family by doing work of Rajmistri and earning an income of Rs.16,000/- per month. During the course of his treatment, appellant/claimant has spent hefty amount towards his treatment and also became permanently disabled. Therefore, total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,06,000/- has been claimed under various heads. 4. Respondent No. 2 did not file any written statement and remained ex- parte, whereas respondent No. 1/driver of the offending vehicle filed his written statement, contended that on the date of accident, he was having a valid and effective driving license, there was no breach of terms and conditions of the insurance policy on his part, therefore, compensation, if any, is payable by the respondent No.3/Insurance company. 5. On the other hand, respondent No. 3/Insurance company in its written statement pleaded that respondent No. 1 was not having a valid and effective driving license and also denied this fact that the appellant was earning Rs. 16,000/- per month, and moreover, the present appellant/claimant is claiming for a hefty amount, the same falls under the breach and violation of insurance policy, liability, if any, to pay compensation is of respondents No. 1 and 2. 6. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned Claims Tribunal recorded its finding that since the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3- Insurance Company, held it accountable to pay compensation first and awarded the compensation of Rs. 8,36,900/- along with interest @ 6% per annum in favour of the 4 appellant/claimant taking the monthly income of the appellant/claimant as Rs. 4,500/- per month and Rs. 54,000/- per annum, applying the multiplier of 17. Hence, this appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the impugned award is bad, illegal and also against the eye of law, the appellant has received grievous injury on wrist of right hand, shoulder and thumb of the right hand, thigh of the right leg, knees of both legs and knees of bowls were fractured, his primary treatment was done in the Government District Hospital and he was admitted from 16.12.2016 to 18.12.2016, Rajnandgaon and due to his serious condition, he was referred to Dr. Bheemrao Smriti Hospital, Raipur, where he was admitted from 18.12.2016 to 26.01.2017 for his proper treatment and spent hefty amount for the same. Learned Claims Tribunal was not justified in assessing the income of the appellant as it assessed it to be of Rs. 4,500/- per month, whereas it should have been taken as Rs. 16,000/- as he was working as Rajmistri and was also getting daily allowance @Rs. 600/-. The Tribunal awarded meager amount towards loss of income due to permanent disability. This apart, under the conventional heads also the amount awarded by learned Tribunal needs to be suitably enhanced. In support of above contention, reliance has been placed on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Transport Corporation and another, (2009) 6 SCC 121, National Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680, Magma General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Nanuram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130, kirit vs. 5 Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd, 2021 (2) SCC 166 and Rajkumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Others, 2011 (1) SCC 343. 8. No one appears on behalf of the respondents No. 1 & 2, despite service of notice. 9. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/insurance company supporting the award impugned submits that the learned Claims Tribunal minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. The impugned award passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper according to the guidelines of Hon’ble Apex Court, which does not call for any interference by this Court. The appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 10. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. As regards income of the appellant/claimant, though the claimant has pleaded that he was earning Rs. 16,000/- per month as a Rajmistri and also getting daily allowance of Rs. 600/- but no documentary or oral evidence in support thereof has been adduced. Therefore, in these circumstances, in absence of any proof regarding income, the income of the claimant as a semi-skilled labour is considered as Rs. 6388/- per month as per minimum wages at the relevant time. Learned Tribunal found age of the appellant was around 26 to 30 years at the time of incident and rightly applied the multiplier of 17 as per the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme court in the matter of Sarla Verma vs. Delhi Parivahan Nigam, reported in (2009) 6 SCC 121 and the learned Claims Tribunal awarded total amount of Rs. 8,36,900/- on various heads such as loss of income due to deduction in total earning capacity, medical expenses, permanent disability, pain and suffering, 6 special diet, attendant, transportation and repairing expenses etc., but this said amount is on lower side, which needs to be enhanced. 12. Thus, the claimant is held to be entitled for compensation as under:- S.N Head Awarded by the Awarded by this o. 1. 2. 3. Tribunal (Rs.) Court (Rs.) For income Rs. 54,000/-p.a Rs. 76,656/- p.a. (4,500 p.m.x12) (Rs. 6,388 Multiplier 17 p.m.x12) 17 For loss of future Rs. 7,34,400/- ( 80% Rs. 10,42,521/- income due to of 54,000 p.a.x17) (80% of 76,656 permanent disability p.a. x 17) (80%) 4. For treatment and Rs. 25,500/- 25,500/- 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. medicine For Pain and Rs. 10,000/- Rs. 1,00,000/- Suffering For Special Diet For Attendant For Conveyance Repairing of accidental vehicle Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 3,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 25,000/- Rs. 20,000/- Rs. 3,000/- Total compensation Rs. 8,36,900/- Rs. 13,17,677/- awarded 13. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, the claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs. 13,17,677/-. Since, the Claims Tribunal has already awarded Rs.8,36,900/-, after deducting the said amount, the claimant/appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs. 4,80,777/-. This additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till realization. The amount received by the claimant, if any, shall be 7 adjusted in the enhanced sum. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 14. Appeal is partly allowed with modification in the impugned award to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge AMIT PATEL