Skip to content
Order
  • Library
  • Features
  • About
  • Blog
  • Contact
Get started
Book a Demo

Order

At Order.law, we’re building India’s leading AI-powered legal research platform.Designed for solo lawyers, law firms, and corporate legal teams, Order helps you find relevant case law, analyze judgments, and draft with confidence faster and smarter.

Product

  • Features
  • Blog

Company

  • About
  • Contact

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms

Library

  • Acts
  • Judgments
© 2025 Order. All rights reserved.
  1. Home/
  2. Library/
  3. High Court Of Chhattisgarh/
  4. 2024/
  5. February

Smt. Sharda Sahu vs. Akhilesh Chouhan

Decided on 29 February 2024• Citation: MAC/1265/2017• High Court of Chhattisgarh
Download PDF

Read Judgment


                                                1                                   
                                                   Order Reserved on 05.02.2024     
                                                 Order Pronounced on 29.02.2024     
                                                                     NAFR           
                              HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR                  
                                          MAC No. 1265 of 2017                      
                           1 - Smt. Sharda Sahu W/o Santosh Sahu, Aged About 45 Years
                           R/o 10 Kholi, Sarkanda, Police Station Sarkanda, Tahsil And
                           District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh .............Claimant.   
                                                                ---- Appellant      
                                              Versus                                
                           1 - Akhilesh Chouhan S/o Mudrika Chouhan, Aged About 30  
                           Years R/o House No.90, Supela Chingripara, Ward No.5, Bhilai,
                           District Durg, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver And Owner Of Truck
                           No. C.G.07 A T 5535                                      
                           2 - Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited,
                           Through Branch Office, Gurukripa Tower Second Floor, Vyapar
                           Vihar Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh    
                                                             ---- Respondents       
                      Ms. Ashtha Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant.         
                      Mr. Akash Shrivastava, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2.
                      _______________________________________________________________
                                              CAV Order                             
                              Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput              
                           This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor
                      Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short MV Act) challenging the award dated
                      22.10.2016 passed in Claim Case No. 315/2015 by the Learned 1st
                      Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur,
                      CG. By the impugned award, against a claim of Rs. 11,50,000/-, the
                      learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 5,31,000/- in favour
                      of the appellant / claimant on account of injuries sustained by her in an
                      accident that took place on 12.12.2014 by rash and negligent driving of
                      the offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No. CG 07 AT 5535

                                                2                                   
                      driven and owned by the respondent No. 1 / driver cum owner and
                      insured with respondent No. 2 / insurance company.            
                      2.   As per the pleadings of the claim application, at the time of
                      accident, the appellant / claimant along with one Raviya Begam had
                      gone to new bus stand to seach for a place for her tea stall. A truck
                      bearing registration No. CG 04 /8062 was standing there. At that time,
                      the respondent No. 1 drove the offending vehicle rashly and negligently
                      and dashed the parked truck, which turn turtle and the appellant /
                      claimant came buried under the offending vehicle. She sustained
                      severe injuries on her both legs in the accident and was admitted to
                      CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur and thereafter to Mekahara Hospital Raipur
                      and her ankle of both legs were severed and also sustained injuries on
                      her waist, twice she underwent a surgery and steal rod was inserted. As
                      a result of the accident, the appellant / claimant became permanent
                      disabled. Her husband had died 15 years back. She was earning Rs.
                      4,700/- per month by doing a job. Hence, total compensation of Rs.
                      11,50,000/- was claimed.                                      
                      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 submits that there is  
                      permanent disability to the tune of 60% however, looking to the injuries
                      as fingers and ankle parts were amputated therefore, she is not able to

                                                3                                   
                      perform any work. No future prospect has been added and income is
                      also taken on the lower side. The amount of compensation on other
                      heads is also on the lower side. She further submits that loss of income
                      during the treatment has also not been considered.            
                      6.   Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 supports the award
                      and submits that just compensation has been awarded and income has
                      been duly considered.                                         
                      7.   Heard the learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival
                      submissions and perused the record.                           
                      8.   Learned Tribunal after appreciating the evidence available on
                      record, holding the monthly income of the appellant / claimant to Rs.
                      4,700/- per month and assessed the functional disability to 60% and
                      awarded compensation in the following manner:-                
                           For loss of earning capacity Rs. 4,73,760/-; for future treatment
                      Rs. 10,000/-; Pain and suffering Rs. 5,000/-; special diet Rs. 5,000/-;
                      Transportation expenses Rs. 5,000/-; Attendant Rs. 5,000/- and
                      Treatment expenses Rs. 31,300/- thus awarded compensation to Rs.
                      5,31,000/-.                                                   
                      9.   Considering the evidence available on record, date of accident;
                      nature of job; this Court assesses the monthly income of the injured to
                      Rs. 5500/-. Keeping all this in mind, this Court proceeds to compute the
                      compensation awardable in favour of the appellant / claimant in the
                      following manner:-                                            
                      S. No.            Description          Amount                 
                      1.   Monthly income                    5500/-                 
                      2.   25% Future prospect               1375/-                 
                      3.   Total Monthly Income (5500+1375)  6875/-                 

                                                4                                   
                      4.   Total Yearly Income (6875x12)     82,500/-               
                      5.   Functional disability 60% yearly loss 49,500/-           
                      6.   Multiplier of 14 applied to assess total loss of 6,93,000/-
                           dependency                                               
                      7.   Future treatment                  50,000/-               
                      8.   For pain and suffering            25,000/-               
                      9.   Loss of earning during treatment  10,000/-               
                      10.  Transportation                    10,000/-               
                      11.  Nutritional diet                  10,000/-               
                      12.  For loss of amenity and enjoyment of life 50,000/-       
                      13.  Medical Treatment                 Rs. 31,300/- (as       
                                                             awarded     by         
                                                             tribunal)              
                                          Total              Rs. 8,79,300/-         
                      10.  Since learned Tribunal has already awarded a sum of Rs.  
                      5,31,000/-, the enhanced amount which he now is entitled to get comes
                      to Rs. 3,48,300/-. Order accordingly.                         
                      11.  The amount of compensation shall be paid by the insurance
                      company / respondent No. 2 within a period of 60 days with 6% 
                      interest, from the date of application.                       
                      12.  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 two years and the remainder be paid to her through
                      bank transaction.                                             
                      13.  Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.              
                                                              Sd/-                  
                                                        (Sachin Singh Rajput)       
                                                               Judge                
             PAWAN