Mohgaon, Police Station v. Sanjay Kumar Sahu
Case at a glance
- Bench
- SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT
Outcome
Allowed
The appeal is allowed in part
Provisions considered
- Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 s. 173
Key paragraphs
- Para 88. Considering the evidence available on record, looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, fracture on ribs and admission period in the hospital, in order to make the compensation just, a further sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded in favour of the appellant / claimant…
Judgment
Shri G.M.Hassan, Advocate Smt. Swati Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 05/02/2024
This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the M.V.Act’) has been filed against impugned award dated 28/07/2018 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District – Raipur, Chhattisgarh in Motor Accident Claim Case No.648/2017. By the impugned award, learned Tribunal awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.62,706/- as compensation to the appellant / claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident that took place on 29/03/2017 by rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No.CG05-D-2037 by respondent No.1/driver, owned by 2 respondent No.2/owner and insured with respondent No.3 / insurance company.
As per the claim application, the appellant was earning Rs.14,000/- monthly working as Computer Operator in the Urban Administration and Development department. Due to accident, he sustained severe injuries and remained in hospital for a considerable period of time and continued treatment after his discharge also. A total compensation to the tune of Rs.45,00,000/- was claimed by him under various heads. The claim application was resisted by respondent No.3 on various grounds and stated that the offending vehicle was being driven in violation of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
Learned Tribunal framed issues and decided those issues in favour of the appellant / claimant. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant submits that the compensation awarded is on the lower side and the amount on other heads are also on the lower side. Therefore, suitable enhancement may be made. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 supports the award and submits that the doctor was not examined and no disability certificate was produced and the appellant/claimant is still continuing in service, therefore, just compensation has been awarded by the learned Tribunal and no interference is called for. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and perused the records. After due appreciation of evidence, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation in the following manner - Medical expenses Attendant Special diet Travel expenses Loss of income - - - - - Rs.3636/- Rs.1600/- Rs.1500/- Rs.1500/- Rs.27470/- 3 Disability and disappointment caused due to injuries Pain and suffering Damage to belongings - - - Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.7,000/- Rs.62,706/-
Operative part
Considering the evidence available on record, looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, fracture on ribs and admission period in the hospital, in order to make the compensation just, a further sum of Rs.50,000/- is awarded in favour of the appellant / claimant in addition to the amount already awarded. Respondent No.3 shall pay the amount of Rs.50,000/- within a period of 60 days with 6% interest from the date of claim application. The appeal is allowed in part. Deepti Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput ) Judge
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is allowed in part
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — s. 173.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.