Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:16744 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No.1664 of 2018 Judgment reserved on : 06.03.2025 Judgment delivered on : 09.04.2025 Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 1 - Arun Gupta S/o Sitaram Gupta Aged About 38 Years R/o Seepat Gudi Thana Seepat Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh..............Claimant versus Appellant 1 - Tejinder Singh Sindhu S/o Vasan Singh, R/o- C/o Dhananjay Kumar Quattro No. -2 Dhurva District Rachi (Jharkhand) Possibility Address Director Of Mahindra Bus Service Pandri New Bus Stand Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur (Chhattisgarh). (Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bus No. J.H.01/b.A./7969)............Driver 2 - Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office-2nd Floor Ram Tred Center, In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Bus Stand Bilaspur Tahsil And District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh). (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bus No. J.H.01/b.A./7969).............Insurer 3 - Basant Kumar S/o Sheshnarayan R/o Village Beludi Tahsil Guderdehi District Baloud (Chhattisgarh). (Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Bus No. J.H.01/b.A./7969).............Owner Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent No.2 For Respondent Nos.1 & 3 : None, though served
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A. L. Singroul, Advocate Mr. H. P. Agrawal, Advocate : : 2 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey CAV Judgment 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 has been preferred by the appellant/claimant against the award 27.04.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur in Claim Case No.586/2016, whereby claim of the claimant has been partly allowed and he was awarded Rs.51,900/- as compensation. 2. The respondent No.2 has also filed cross appeal challenging the impugned award on the ground that on the date of incident, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence and he was in drunken condition. 3. Brief facts of the case are that on 04/05/2016, the respondent no.1 while driving the offending vehicle bus bearing registration No.J.H.01-BΑ-7969 rashly and negligently turned turtle the offending vehicle bus, in which the appellant was one of the passengers and sustained grievous injuries, upon which a case was registered against the offending driver and owner. Subsequently claim petition was filed by the appellant/claimant before the learned Tribunal, which was partly allowed and Rs.51,900/- was awarded in favour of the appellant, against which the present appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the 3 impugned award is perverse, illegal and contrary to law. The finding recorded by the learned Tribunal suffers from perversity being contrary to pleadings and evidence on record and as such the same is liable to be set aside. The learned Claims Tribunal ought to have called report regarding the medical treatment and legal steps, as provided in the Rule No.226 of the Motor Vehicles Rules and ought to have also called the doctor and medical reports as per provisions of rule No.226 of Motor Vehicles Rules. The Claims Tribunal has wrongly assessed the income of the claimant and not awarded sufficient amount for loss of income. The learned Claims Tribunal has committed grave legal error in disbelieving the medical bills produced by the claimant/appellant in support of his pleading. The learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded sufficient amount for medical treatment, special diet, assistant & traveling etc. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Smt. Sunita Devi and others vs Tejinder Singh Sindhu and others passed in MAC No.1690/2018 vide judgment dated 25.09.2024. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 insurance company opposes the submission made by the appellant’s counsel and submits that on the date of incident, the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. the respondent No.1 was not having valid and effective driving licence and he was driving the offending vehicle in drunken condition. The disability certificate was also not 4 produced by the appellant and the learned Tribunal has wrongly awarded the compensation in favour of the claimant. Therefore, the cross appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Learned counsel for the parties have objected to each other’s argument. 7. No one appears on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 3 despite service of notice. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. It is clear from the impugned award that the learned Trial Court found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1/non applicant No.1 and due to this accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries. The learned Trial Court found that the appellant did not file any disability certificate but looking to the discharge ticket (Ex-P/16), the learned Trial Court found that the appellant/claimant sustained grievous injuries and he was admitted in hospital from 05.05.2016 to 24.05.2016. 10. It is clear from the impugned award that the learned Tribunal awarded Rs.1900/- as treatment cost and Rs.25,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.25,000/- in other heads, but it is clear that the learned Tribunal did not award any amount for loss of income and even awarded less amount in other heads. It is clear from discharge ticket (Ex-P/16) that the appellant was admitted in hospital for about 20 days and after discharge, he was not able to 5 work for 2 months due to the injuries sustained by him. 11. It is clear from the record that the appellant did not file any document of his income, as such his notional income in the year 2016 as unskilled labour is considered as 6107/- and he is entitled to compensation in the following manner:- Sr. No. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Head Amount awarded Amount awarded by Loss of income Nil by the Tribunal Medical treatment Rs.1900/- Pain and suffering Rs.25,000/- Rs.25,000/- Special diet and this Court Rs.18321/- (6107x3) Rs.1900/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- attendant Total Rs.51,900/- Rs.1,20,221/- Thus, the claimant is entitled to the total compensation of Rs.1,20,221/- but since he has already been awarded Rs.51,900/- by the learned Tribunal, as such he is entitled to the compensation of Rs.68,321/- (Rs.1,20,221 – Rs.51,900/), which shall be paid by the respondent No.2 insurance company with 6% interest per annum from the date of filing of claim petition before the learned Tribunal to till its actual realization. 12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant is party allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent indicated herein-above. 13. As regards the cross appeal filed by the respondent No.2 insurance company, it is clear from the record that the insurance company has utterly failed to establish the fact that the driver of 6 the offending vehicle was not having effective and driving licence on the date of incident and that the driver of the offending vehicle was in a drunken condition and no proof or evidence whatsoever was produced by the insurance company regarding the same before the learned Tribunal, as such the learned Tribunal rightly decided issue No.3 against the insurance company. 14. Thus, the cross appeal filed by the respondent No.2 insurance company is without any merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. Nirala Sd/- Rajani Dubey Judge