Nafr High Court
Case Details
SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI Digitally signed by SYED ROSHAN ZAMIR ALI 1 2025:CGHC:36990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2103 of 2019 1. Mo. Hadis Ansari S/o Mo. Gulam Ansari Aged About 34 Years R/o Laxminagar (Near Devi Mandir) P.S.- Tikrapara, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. versus ... Petitioner 1. Radhesyam Thakur S/o Dhanaram Thakur, R/o Jhanda Chowk Pandari, P.S.- Pandari, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of Auto No. C.G.-04-Ks-6733), 2. The Bharti Exsa General Insurance Co. Ltd. Through- In Charge Officer Bharti Exsa General Insurance Co. Ltd., Chawala Complex, Devendra Nagar Road, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Auto No. C.G.-04-Ks-6733) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ashish Pandey, Advocate on behalf of Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board 29/7/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No.1/2019, an application for condonation of delay of 317 days in filing this appeal. 2. Submission of learned counsel for appellant is opposed by learned counsel for respondents. 3. On due consideration of pleadings in I.A. No.1/2019 and submissions of learned counsel for respective parties, it is allowed. Delay in filing this appeal is condoned. 2 4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of quantum of compensation. The Claims Tribunal has fastened liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the respondents, jointly and severally, but first liability to pay the amount of compensation is upon the insurance company being the insurer of offending vehicle. In such circumstance, this appeal may be heard finally at motion stage. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 does not dispute above submission of learned counsel for appellant and submits that he has no objection if the appeal itself is decided finally. 6. Consequently, with consent of the parties, the case is heard finally. 7. Appellant-claimant has filed this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the Court of learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to the Court of learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 27.9.2018 in Claim Case No.125/2015. 8. Claimant-appellant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.31,50,000/-under various heads on account of injuries suffered by him in a road accident caused by offending vehicle i.e. Auto bearing 3 registration number CG04-KS-6733, driven in a rash and negligent manner by non-applicant No.1 / respondent No.1 herein. It was pleaded that at the time of accident, claimant was 34 years old, due to injuries sustained by him in said accident, he suffered permanent disability, affecting his earning capacity. 9. Non-applicant No.1 did not appear before the Claims Tribunal and therefore he was proceeded ex-parte. 10. Non-applicant No.2 filed its reply to claim application and denied the averments made therein. It was pleaded that injured claimant drove his motorcycle on wrong side and met with accident with the offending vehicle. Since the accident is a head-on collusion, therefore, contributory negligence should be fixed on the part of both drivers. Compensation claimed is exaggerated. At the time of accident, driver of offending vehicle was not possessing valid and effective driving license and even there was no fitness certificate in favour of offending vehicle, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured. 11. Learned Claims Tribunal, considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced by respective parties, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicle; injuries suffered by claimant did not result in permanent disablement; there was no violation of conditions of insurance policy and accordingly, 4 allowed the application in part and awarded total sum of Rs.1,73,225/- as compensation to claimant /appellant herein. 12. Learned counsel for claimant/appellant submits that the Claims Tribunal has not taken into consideration that, claimant suffered fracture of right leg and hand and remained hospitalized for about 15-16 days, even after discharge from hospital, he took treatment as out-patient. However, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation towards attendant charges. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 supporting the award passed by the Claims Tribunal submitted that compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper, it does not call for any interference. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused record of claim case. 15. Assessment of income of appellant-injured for the purpose of computation of compensation under the head of loss of income is not in dispute. Appellant is only aggrieved by non award of any compensation towards attendant. 16. As per Discharge Summary (Ex.P-4) of the MMI Narayana Hospital Rapur, appellant-claimant admitted in hospital on 17.7.2014, he was diagnosed with fracture of right femur, intra medullary nailing procedure was performed on appellant, which is a surgical procedure performed to stabilize fracture 5 of femur bone etc., which involves insertion of a metal rod. Appellant was discharged on 22.7.2014 with advise of follow- up /review after 10 days. Thus, looking to the nature of injuries sustained by appellant, it cannot be denied that appellant-claimant would have required services of an attendant during hospitalization period as well as for any follow-up treatment. Hence, the Claims Tribunal ought to have awarded attendant charges to the claimant. Accordingly, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.12,000/- as compensation for attendant charges. It is ordered accordingly. 17. Further, the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any compensation for grievous injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident. Looking to the fracture injury sustained by the appellant, I deem it appropriate to award a sum of Rs.15,000/- towards grievous injuries. It is ordered accordingly. 18. The compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal towards medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of future income, special diet and conveyance is just and proper and the same is maintained. 19. In view of above, claimant/appellant is now entitled for compensation as under;- 6 HEADS : AMOUNT (In Rs.) Medical expenses Pains and sufferings Loss of future income Nutritious diet For conveyance For Attendant For grievous injuries : : : : : : : 82,225=00 25,000=00 36,000=00 12,000=00 18,000=00 12,000=00 15,000=00 Total: 2,00,225=00 20. Now, claimant/appellant is held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,00,225/- in place of Rs.1,73,225/- as awarded by the Claims Tribunal. This enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of filing of application. Any amount disbursed to appellant pursuant to impugned award will be adjusted from the amount of compensation as awarded above. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall remain intact. 21. In the result, appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. roshan/- Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge