1
2024:CGHC:38631
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 1498 of 2018
• Ramdas Patel S/o Late Kalinder Prasad Aged About 51 Years
Occupation-Service (Clark), Cast Aghariya, R/o Village-Mainey Post-
Durgapara, P.S. And Tahsil Bagicha, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh....
(Claiment), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
....Appellant
versus
1. Suresh Kujur S/o Late Nandlal Kujur Aged About 19 Years Cast-Uraon,
R/o Village-Peta P.S. And Tahsil-Bagicha, District- Jashpur,
Chhattisgarh.....(Driver), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
2. Manoj Toppo S/o Ramdayal Toppo Aged About 26 Years Cast-Uraon, R/o
Village-Peta, P.S. And Tahsil-Bagicha, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh......
(Owner), District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
3. Branch Manager, ICICI Lumbard Journal Insurance Company Ltd Veer
Sawarker Marg Near Sidh Vinayak Tampal Prabhadevi Mumbai,
Maharashtra, Local Office/nearest Branch Manager Office Bagicha
Building Ground Flour Devendra Nagar Raipur, Chhattisgarh....(Insurer)
4. Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Atwari Bazar
Naya Ganj Raigarh, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
.... Respondents
2
For Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate
For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None
For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Tessy Abraham, Advocate
For Respondent No. 4 : Ms. Prerna Agrawal, Advocate on behalf of
Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma,
Order on Board
30/09/2024
1. Claimant-appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'Act of 1988') for enhancement of the
award, challenging the impugned award dated 16.05.2018 passed by
Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Jashpur (C.G.) in
Claim Case No. 114/2015, whereby Tribunal allowed the application
filed under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 in part and awarded total
sum of Rs. Rs.2,18,000/- as compensation on account of injuries
sustained by appellant/Ramdas Patel.
2. The case in brief is such that on 18.11.2014 appellant/Ramdas Patel
was going on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-13/ UC/3040.
On the way near the village-Peta, respondent No. 1 driving his
motorcycle bearing registration No. CG/15/CU/4658 rashly and
negligently and dashed the motorcycle of appellant, due to which, he
suffered grievous injuries on various parts of his body especially in his
left eye.
3
3. Appellant has filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988
seeking total compensation of Rs.14,90,000/- pleading therein that on
the date of accident, he was working as ‘Clerk’ in the Sanskrit College
and thereby earning Rs.30,201/- per month as a salary. His family is
dependent upon his income. Due to injuries suffered by him in the said
accident, he remained admitted in the hospital for treatment and
incurred Rs.80,975/- towards his treatment. In support of his
submission, he placed reliance upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble
Supreme Court in case of Jawahar Singh V/s Bala Jain & Ors.
report in (2011) 6 SCC 425.
4. Upon appreciation of pleadings and evidence placed on record by
respective parties, Tribunal held that appellant got injured on account
of rash and negligent driving of the respondent no. 1 due to which, he
suffered grievous injuries. Accordingly, Tribunal allowed application in
part, awarded Rs.2,18,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, fastened
liability upon Respondents No. 1 and 2 to pay the amount of
compensation jointly or separately.
5. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted that
quantum of compensation is not in accordance with law and deserves
to be suitably enhanced.
6. The claim application was resisted by the respondents on various
ground and counsel for the respondents further submit that the
4
Tribunal is justified in assessing the income of deceased as
Rs.30,201/- per month. The Claims Tribunal after taking into
consideration documents placed on record by the Claimant has
awarded total amount of compensation as Rs.2,18,000/-. Hence,
amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to claimants cannot
be said to be on lower side, rather it is just and proper in the given
facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any
interference.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, considered their
rival submissions and perused the records with utmost circumspection.
8. From perusal of the record, it is manifest that the claimant claimed an
amount of Rs. 14,90,000/- towards the injuries sustained by him. The
appellant admitted in hospital at Ambikapur for seven days and
thereafter in the hospital at Raipur for a period of five days where he
undergone the surgery for which an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- incurred
and for diet and other medicines also incurred whopping expenses. It
was also reported that he had a fracture in his face. As per Ex.P/18,
the appellant’s eye treatment is ongoing, which proves that the
appellant was undergoing treatment for a long time. The appellant has
submitted Ex.P.19, which is the estimate details of the injuries he
sustained, but there is no statement of the doctor was recorded. As per
the appellant, It is also evident that the appellant was working as
Upper Division Clerk and getting Rs.32,300/- per month. Due to
serious injuries and permanent disability in the accident, he lost sight
5
of his left eye and became permanently disabled. The appellant has
stated in his statement that he has become incapable of discharging
his duties due to loss of vision in his left eye, but the appellant has not
disclosed in his statement the situation as to how his job was adversely
affected due to temporary disability in his left eye. He also contended
that due to accident his left eye was damaged and the vision of his left
eye was lost which adversely affected the career of the appellant and
he has been removed from the service on the ground that he is not fit
for the said post.
9. However, upon bare perusal of the record, it is crystal clear that even
after the accident, the appellant is rendering his services on the same
post and as such it cannot be said that on account of accident his
service has been affected adversely whereas he is getting salary
regularly.
10. The Tribunal has awarded only Rs.70,000/- towards physical pain and
mental agony which in the considered opinion of this Court is on lower
side and requires enhanced suitably. Accordingly, it is enhanced from
Rs.70,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- for physical pain and mental agony of the
appellant.
11. Tribunal has not awarded anything with respect to the future medical
expenses. Looking to the injuries of the appellant, in future also he will
have to carry forward his treatment for which this Court has opined to
award Rs.25,000/- to the appellant under the head of future medical
expenses.
6
12. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, material available
on record and in light of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in case of Jawahar Singh V/s Bala Jain & Ors. reported in
(2011) 6 SCC 425, this Court is recomputing the compensation as
below:-
S.No Particular Awarded amount
by the Court
1. Medical bills Rs. 90,000/-
2. Special Diet, Transportation Rs. 50,000/-
expenses and attendant
3. Physical pain and Mental Agony Rs. 1,00,000/-
4. Loss of Expectation of life Rs. 1,00,000/-
5. Future medical expenses Rs. 25,000/-
6. Amount for damage of vehicle Rs.8,000/-
Total compensation Rs.3,73,000/-
13. For the forgoing reasons, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of
compensation of Rs.2,18,000/- awarded by the tribunal is enhanced to
Rs.3,73,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.2,18,000/-,
the appellant/claimant is held entitled for an additional amount of
Rs.1,55,000/-. As held by the Tribunal, respondents No. 1 and 2 shall
deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within
a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The
7
additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 6% per
annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal,
till its realization. Rest of the conditions of impugned award shall
remain intact.
Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma)
Judge
$. Bhilwar