Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Kenvari Bai Nishad And Anr vs Mohan Sahu And Ors on 18 August, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MAC No. 159 of 2015
1. Smt. Kenvari Bai Nishad W/o Santosh Nishad, Aged About 43 Years R/o
Shivpara, Durg Distt. Durg C.G., Chhattisgarh
2. Sonu Nishad S/o Santosh Nisad Aged About 16 Years Minor through his
natural guardian mother Smt. Kenvari Bai Nishad Appellant No. 1 R/o
Shivpara, Durg Distt. Durg C.G., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
Versus
1. Mohan Sahu And Ors S/o Salikram Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o
Kanandkera, Police Station Rajim, Distt. Raipur C.G., Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Asha Singhai W/o Late Anil Singhai Aged About 55 Years R/o Near
Satyanarayan Mandir, Gobara Nayapara Rajim, Distt. Raipur C.G., District :
Raipur, Chhattisgarh
3. I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Com. Ltd. W/o Issuing Office Jenith
House, Keshavrao Khare Marge, Mahalaxmi, Mumbai, M.H. 400034
Regional Manager, Gegional Office Lal Ganga Shopping Mall Complex,
Shop No. 34, 3rd Floor, G.E. Road, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur, C.G.
Through Branchmanager Branch Office I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General
Insurance Company Limited, Pukhraj Complex, Above State Bank Of
Indore, Station Road Durg, Tahsil And Distt. Durg C.G., District : Durg,
Chhattisgarh
4. Ambar Singhai S/o Late Anil Singhai Aged About 35 Years Near
Satyanarayan Mandir, Gobara Nayapara Rajim, Distt. Raipur C.G. ,
District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh
5. Ramsingh S/o Late Kanshiram Dhimar, Aged About 50 Years R/o Shivpara,
Police Station And Tahsil Durg C.G. , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
6. Maan Singh Dhimar S/o Late Kanshiram Dhimar Aged About 38 Years R/o
Shivpara, Police Station And Tahsil Durg C.G. , District : Durg, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For Appellants : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate.
For Respondents No. 1, 2 & 4 : Mr. Umakant Sing Chandel,Advocate
For Respondent No. 3. : Mr. T. Abraham, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy
Order On Board
18.08.2022
1. The present is an appeal by the claimants under section 173 seeking
for enhancement of the compensation awarded.
2. The challenge is to the award dated 18.07.2013 passed in Motor
Accident Claim Case No. 83 of 2013. The claim application has been
filed by the appellants on the accidental death of one Mangalin @
Mangali Bai Dhemar. The appellant No. 1 is the sister of the deceased
and appellant No. 2 is the Nephew of the deceased i.e. son of the
appellant No. 1. The deceased Mangalin met with an accident
traveling in a Mini Bus on 26.01.2010 bearing registration No.
C.G./07/E/1261 which dashed against a truck bearing registration No.
C.G./04/Z.C./6948. As the result of the said accident, Mangalin Bai
suffered serious injuries and she was hospitalized at Raipur wherein
in the course of her treatment, she succumbed to her injuries on
05.02.2010. Mangalin Bai at the time of accident was aged around 40
years and that she was earning her livelihood by selling fish and was
earning approximately Rs. 200/- a day. The claimants in the capacity
of sister and nephew had filed the claim application seeking for
compensation. The Tribunal finally vide impugned award dated
18.07.2013 has refused to grant any compensation to the appellants
on the ground that the appellants were not found to be the direct
dependent upon the deceased. The claimants were only paid an
amount of Rs. 50,000/-, under the 'No-fault liability' under Section 140
of the Motor Vehicle Act. In addition Rs. 5,000/- towards love and
affection and 2000 towards funeral charges were given, in all total Rs.
57000/- were given to the appellants.
3. The Learned Counsel for appellants submits that the Tribunal below
has not properly appreciated the medical evidence which was
furnished so far as the Medical Bills that were raised for the treatment
of the deceased that were incurred from the date of accident till the
date of death on 05.02.2010. In addition, counsel for the appellants
has also submitted that in the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Limited
V. Pranay Shetty and Ors. Reported in (2017) 16 SCC 680, the
appellants would have got also the compensation of Rs 70,000/-
under the other heads. All these were not considered by the Tribunal
at all and even the expenses made towards the Medical was refused
only on the ground of their pleading that they did not have any source
of income. Therefore, they would not have been in the capacity to
spend the expenses incurred on the treatment of the deceased.
4. The findings given by the Tribunal to the aforesaid extent does not
seem to be proper, legal and justified, even if the person would not
have had any source of income but in a case of an accident where
the injured would have required urgent medical attention, some
arrangement would have been made either by borrowing it from
relative or from any other source and would have met with the
expenses towards treatment. The refusal for the grant of medical
expenses therefore does not seem to be proper. The total amount of
bills that were raised by the claimants which have been exhibited as
(Annexure P-15 to P-39) and the total amount comes to roughly
around Rs. 70,000/-. The claimants therefore would become entitled
for the said amount incurred towards the medical expenses. In
addition, relying upon the judgment of the Pranay Shetty (supra), the
appellants would also be entitled for compensation under the other
heads to the tune of Rs. 70,000/- which would be including the
expenses incurred for the funeral. As regards pain and agony, the
Tribunal below has already granted an amount of Rs. 5,000/-. As
regards love and affection, this Court grants another Rs. 5000/-. thus
making the total compensation payable to the claimants at Rs. 2 lacs
instead of Rs. 57,000/- as was awarded by the Tribunal. So far as the
interest part awarded by the Tribunal, the same would remain intact.
5. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed to the aforesaid extent. The
Insurance Company is directed to pay the enhanced amount within a
period of 30 days.
Sd/-
(P. Sam Koshy)
Judge
Jyoti
