1 - Smt. Asha Gupta W/o Shri Madan Gopal Gupta Aged About 60 Years v. 1 - Roshan Lal Janghel S/o
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:18330 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2056 of 2019 1 - Smt. Asha Gupta W/o Shri Madan Gopal Gupta Aged About 60 Years R/o Ward No. 19, Vardhman Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. … Appellant/Claimant versus 1 - Roshan Lal Janghel S/o Shri Manohar Lal Janghel Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Litiya, Bajrangpur Nawagaon, Police Station Lalbagh, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Tata Indigo Car Bearing No. C.G. 08-U-7744).
Legal Reasoning
2 - Manohar Lal Janghel S/o Shri Gaindlal Janghel Aged About 61 Years R/o Village Litiya, Bajrangpur Nawagaon, Police Station Lalbagh, Tahsil And District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tata Indigo Car Bearing No. C.G. 08-U-7744). 3 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Board Office (451200), First Floor, Chouhan Estate, G.E. Road Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Tata Indigo Car Bearing No. C.G. 08 U, 7744). ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Alok Kumar Dewangan, Adv. For Respondents : None. Digitally signed by HEERA LAL SAHU Date: 2025.04.24 12:11:49 +0530 Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 2 (23 . 04 .202 5 ) 1. This appeal arises out of the award dated 22.08.2019 passed by Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 204/2015 whereby a compensation of Rs. 1,27,761.75/- with interest @ 06% per annum has been awarded in favour of the appellant/claimant for his irreparable loss. 2. The averment in the claim petition, in brief, was that, on 09.01.2015 at about 9:30 pm, when the appellant along with his husband was returning to her house from a birthday party of her relative, on activa motorcycle, at that time, in front of Lalbag Thaddu betel shop, at Service Main Raod, Rajnandgaon, the driver of offending vehicle Tata Indigo bearing registration No. CG-08-U-7744 dashed them from the back side and caused the accident, due to which the appellant/claimant suffered grievous injuries. She was escorted to the District Hospital, Rajandgaon, but they had no attendant, therefore, they requested to be discharged from the hospital, and she was discharged. But the appellant is still getting treatment. The treating doctor opined for the operation of Spinal fracture L-2. Further, it was stated that before the accident, the appellant was doing the work of tuition of stitching, embroidery and cooking classes, from which she was earning Rs. 20,000/- per month. Due to the said injuries in the said accident, the appellant is not able to do her routine 3 work, therefore, she appointed a nurse in her house for which she is paying Rs. 20,000/- per month. Thus, due to the accident, the appellant has suffered a total loss of Rs. 13,20,000/- for which the respondents are jointly or severally responsible. Hence, a claim application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act has been preferred by the appellant claiming a total compensation of Rs. 13,20,000/- 3. In the award passed by the Tribunal on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced thereof, it was held that Dr. Rajesh Sadani (AW-2) examined on behalf of the appellant has not the treating doctor and only the doctor who issued the disability certificate (Ex.P-26) to the extent of 45% for three years. Dr. Rajesh Sadani (AW-2) admitted that the treatment of the appellant could be done in the Medical College, Rajnandgaon and by medication, she could recover. Appellant produced medical bills vide Ex.P-6 to Ex.P-20 of Rs. 40,761.75. The appellant pleaded that she was doing the work of tuition of stitching, embroidery and cooking, but she has not produced any documents to this effect. The appellant has also produced a copy of income particulars, but she has neither produced the certified copy of income-related documents nor has she examined the CA, Income Tax return Advocate, who filed her income tax return. In the absence of proof of income, the income of the appellant was taken as Rs. 6,000/- per month and looking 4 to the medical bills and evidence, the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation in the following manner:- Sl. No. 01 02 Heads Compensation Towards Medical expenses Rs. 40,761.75/- Towards expenses in future treatment Rs. 50,000/- and operation 03 Towards physical and mental pain and Rs. 10,000/- special diet 04 05 Towards loss of income Rs. 18,000/- Towards transportation expenses Rs. 7,000/- Total Rs. 1,27,761.75/- 4. Learned counsel for the appellant argues that the learned tribunal has not considered the claim of the appellant as claimed and pleaded in the claim application. No multiplier was applied on the basis of the formula for future loss of income. He further submits that the learned tribunal has not awarded an adequate amount in non-pecuniary heads like mental agony and suffering, expenses on transportation, attendant, nutritious food and medicine. The learned tribunal erred in awarding such a meagre amount to the appellant after considering all the circumstances of the case. Although it was proved that the appellant is 45% permanently disabled, and has submitted a medical board certificate. The appellant has to undergo major operations in future in a metro city hospital where a spinal surgeon is available; she has to get hospitalised, and for that she needs lots of money. Hence, the appeal is liable to be allowed and needs to be enhanced. 5 5. No one appeared on behalf of respondents during final hearing of this case. 6. Heard counsel for the appellant and perused the documents available on record. 7. From the perusal of the entire material available on record, it is clear that the appellant was admitted in the hospital for only one day due to the said injuries. Dr. Rajesh Sadani (AW-2), examined on behalf of the appellant, admitted that he has not medically treated the appellant and only issued a disability certificate (Ex.P-26) to the extent of 45% for three years on the basis of documents produced by the appellant, and no operation has been done. Further, though the appellant had pleaded to do the work of tuition of stitching, embroidery and cooking but it has not been proved by any documentary evidence, even the income tax return has not been proved, as the CA who filed the income tax return of the appellant has not been examined. Furthermore, in this case, it has not been proved that the appellant had a loss of income due to injuries sustained in the said accident. 8. Considering all the above facts, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant is entitled to get a compensation of Rs. 10,000/- towards nutritious food and assistance in addition to what has already been awarded by the claims Tribunal. 9. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The 6 claimant/appellant shall be entitled to Rs. 10,000/- in addition to what has already been awarded by the claims Tribunal as compensation. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and the rest of the conditions shall remain intact. 10. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimant in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the award made by the Tribunal below. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed with a co-ordination of Secretary, Legal Aid of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. H.L. Sahu Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge