1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 932 of 2017
1 - Dayalu Ram S/o Hemu Ram Sahu, Aged About 33 Years
R/o Village Amlor, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband,
Chhattisgarh .............Claimant,
---- Appellant
Versus
1 - Birendra Kumar Sahu S/o Narayan Lal Sahu, Aged About 21
Years R/o Village Raveli, Police Station And Tahsil Chhura,
District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh,
2 - Chuman Lal Dhruv S/o Jahur Singh Dhruv, R/o Village
Lafandi, Post Beltukri, Police Station Rajim, District Gariyaband,
Chhattisgarh,
3 - Branch Manager, Through Bajaj Alliance General Insurance
Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhawan Vidhan Sabha Road
Pandri Raipur, P.S. Tahsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh,
---- Respondents
Mr. S. P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Kaushik on behalf of Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2.
Mr. Akash Diwan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3.
____________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,
Order on Board
30.04.2024
This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated
02.02.2017 passed in Claim Case No. 42/2014 by the Additional Motor
Accident Claim Tribunal, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband, CG. By the
impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 9,20,000/-, the learned Tribunal
has awarded compensation of Rs. 46,000/- in favour of the appellant /
claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in an accident that
took place on 12.04.2014 by rash and negligent driving of the offending
vehicle (motorcycle) bearing registration No. CG 04 KV 7459 driven by
2
the respondent No. 1 / driver, owned by respondent No. 2 and insured
with respondent No. 3 / insurance company.
2. As per the pleadings of the claim application, at the time of
accident, the appellant / claimant sustained severe injuries including
multiple fractures and became specially abled. He remained in
hospitalization for a considerable period of time and spent huge amount
on his treatment.
3. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on
various grounds. The insurance company taken a plea that there was
violation of terms and conditions of the insurance policy.
4. Learned Tribunal framed issues on the basis of the pleadings
made by the respective parties and decided the same in favour of the
appellant / claimant and awarded the above stated compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant vehemently argued
that the disability certificate issued from the District Medical Board was
filed and exhibited which has been duly proved by the statement of Dr. G.
S. Dhruve (AW-2). No award was passed on account of the permanent
disability sustained by the appellant. Likewise, the compensation awarded
on other admissible heads is also stated to be on the lower side, therefore,
the award may suitably be modified.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 supports the award and
submits that the compensation awarded including the one on conventional
heads is just and reasonable, and does not require any interference by this
Court.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
submissions and perused the record.
3
8. As regards the functional disability, the disability certificate (Ex. P-
24) has been issued by the District Medical Board, District Hospital
Gariyaband, CG in which disability was found to be 40%. This certificate
was proved by statement of Dr. G. S. Dhruve (AW-2) who was a medical
officer and one of the member’s of the Medical Board. He has deposed
that he has examined the appellant / claimant on 30.07.2014 and there
was a fracture in the right clavicle bone which is not attached. The bone
had fallen apart. After the examination and X-ray test 40 % permanent
disability certificate was issued by the medical board and further deposed
that as a result of the said disablement, he would not able to perform his
job.
9. Considering the entire evidence, and also relying upon the decision
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar
and another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, this Court assesses the
functional disability of the appellant / claimant to 20%.
10. Accordingly, this Court computes the compensation in the following
manner:-
S. No. Description Amount
1. Monthly income 5000/-
2. 40% Future prospect 2000/-
3. Total Monthly Income (5000+2000) 7000/-
4. Total Yearly Income (7000x12) 84,000/-
5. Functional disability 20% yearly loss 16800/-
6. Multiplier of 16 applied to assess total loss of 2,68,800/-
dependency
7. Medical Treatment 25,000/-
4
8. Pain and Suffering 5,000/-
9. Transportation & Special diet 5,000/-
10. For attendant 3000/-
11. Loss of earning capacity during the treatment 3000/-
12. For consortium 5000/-
Total Rs. 3,14,800/-
11. Since learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.
46,000/-, the enhanced amount which he now is entitled to get comes
to Rs. 2,68,000/-. Order accordingly.
12. The amount of compensation shall be paid by the insurance
company / respondent No. 3 within a period of 60 days with 6%
interest, from the date of appeal i.e. 20.06.2017.
13. On such deposit being made, out of the amount worked out by
way of enhancement, let 90% thereof be invested in some nationalized
bank for a period of three years and the remainder be paid to him
through bank transaction.
14. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Sd/-
(Sachin Singh Rajput)
Judge
PAWAN