Nagendra Shrivas vs Bhushan Singh
2022 Latest Caselaw 5105 Chatt

                                        -1-

                                                                              NAFR
               HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                                MAC No.49 of 2020

   1. Nagendra Shrivas S/o R.D. Shrivas Aged About 34 Years R/o Shivaji
      Nagar, Korba Tahsil and District Korba Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ---Petitioner(s)
                                Versus
   1. Bhushan Singh S/o Late Chandrama Singh Rajput Aged About 24 Years
      R/o Dadar Korba Tahsil and District Korba Chhattisgarh
   2. Narendra Kumar Dubey S/o M. L. Dubey Aged About 56 Years R/o E. W.
      S. /03, Shivaji Nagar, Korba Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.
   3. National Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch Manager, National
      Insurance Company Ltd. Branch Office Mini Complex, Kosabadi, Korba
      Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.
   4. Smt Meena Singh W/o Late Chandrama Singh Aged About 49 Years R/o
      Dadarkhurd Korba Tahsil And District Korba Chhattisgarh.
                                                                   ---Respondents

For Appellant : Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent No.2 : Shri Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate. For Respondent No.3 : Shri Ratan Pusty, Advocate.

Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board

10.08.2022

1. Heard on IA No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing

the cross Appeal by the respondent No.2.

2. The respondent No.2, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident has

now preferred the cross appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC. There is a

delay of more than 998 days in filing of the cross appeal.

3. The original appeal was filed immediately after the award was passed on

02.01.2020. This court had issued notices immediately upon the

respondents. Notices were also served upon the respondents and the

respondents had also entered appearance in the instant appeal in

February, 2020 itself. Now the respondent No.2 Narendra Kumar Dubey

the owner of the offending vehicle has filed a cross appeal with a delay of

almost 1000 days. Along with cross appeal, IA No.1, an application for

condonation of delay in filing cross appeal is also filed.

4. The plain perusal of the contents of the application would reveal that

except for the vague ground of the Covid-19 Pandemic causing the delay,

there is no substantial facts narrated with the application showing

justification for each days delay that has occurred.

5. The counsel for the appellant in the cross appeal relied upon an order

dated 08.04.2022 in MAC No.140/2015 where the court has condoned the

delay of 2572 days in filing the appeal.

6. The facts of the said case is quite different than the facts of the present

case, inasmuch as, there it was the appeal by the claimant with a specific

pleadings that the original claimant and the appellant had infact died and

the family members were not aware of the proceedings and it is only when

they later came to know about this facts, they have approached the court

and filed the appeal. Whereas, in the instant appeal the appellant in the

cross appeal i.e. the owner of the vehicle, Narendra Kumar Dubey, was

well aware of the passing of the award at the first instance wherein the

entire liability has been fastened upon him. Secondly he was also aware of

the appeal having been preferred by the claimants seeking for

enhancement. Thirdly, he had already entered appearance in the said

appeal of the claimant seeking enhancement as early as in February,

2020.

7. For all the aforesaid reasons, this court does not find any strong case

made out calling for condoning the delay in the filing of the cross appeal.

IA No.1 accordingly stands rejected. Consequently, Cross Appeal also

stands rejected.

8. With the consent of the parties, the appeal filed by the claimant also was

heard finally.

9. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant/claimant assailing the

award dated 07.11.2019 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,

Korba (in short, the Tribunal) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 47/2016.

Vide the said impugned award, the Tribunal has awarded the claimant an

amount of Rs.4,36,000/- along with interest @ 7 percent per annum from

the date of application i.e. 11.03.2016. The insurance company was

exonerated from its liability as the vehicle involved in the accident i.e.

Maruti Swift Car bearing registration No.CG-12-AE-7666 was being driven

by the respondent No.1 Bhushan Singh who was not having a valid license

on the date of accident.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has not

properly appreciated the evidence that has been led by the claimant both

in respect of the salary part as also the quantification of the compensation

is concerned. However, plain perusal of the pleadings particularly the

evidence which has come before the court, it clearly reflects that the

claimant Nagendra Shrivas has in his statement before the Tribunal below

has clearly mentioned that at the time of accident he was around 34 years

of age and he was working as a Crime Reporter in one of the daily

newspaper. However, there was no documentary proof or any evidence

that was adduced by the claimant to establish his salary part and the

Tribunal has assessed the monthly salary of the appellant at Rs.9800/- per

month. The further perusal of the record would also show that the Doctor

has also assessed the injuries of the appellant and have opined that there

is an overall disability to the extent of 14.4 percent. In addition, the

Tribunal has also accepted the entire claim of the claimant so far as the

expenses that were incurred in the course of treatment and also the

incidental loss that has suffered to him in between.

11. The Tribunal has accepted the salary of the appellant at Rs.9800/- per

month. The Tribunal has also accepted the age of the claimant to be in

between 31-35 years. Accordingly, in terms of the judgment of the

Supreme Court in case of Sarla Verma & Others vs Delhi Transport

Corp.& Another, 2009(6)SCC 121, has applied the multiplier of 16 and

from the total amount assessed, 14.4 percent of disability part was

quantified and assessed as the compensation payable to the appellant.

12. The Tribunal further has accepted the entire medical bills that the claimant

had furnished and have also assessed compensation towards pain and

suffering, the amount towards diet and other transportation cost incurred

during treatment and have ordered for a payment of Rs.4,36,000/-as

compensation. The counsel for the appellant has not been able to show

any substantial material by which the findings arrived at by the Tribunal

can be said to be in any manner erroneous or for that matter to be on the

lower side both in respect of the salary of the claimant and also in respect

of the percentage of disability assessed.

13. In the absence of any strong material and evidence, this court does not

find any strong case made out calling for an interference with the

impugned award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal thus fails and is

accordingly rejected.

Sd/-

(P. Sam Koshy) Judge inder