Chattisgarh High Court
Mohammad Kurban Sah vs Surendra Kumar Bhuiya on 28 March, 2025
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1
2025:CGHC:15027
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MAC No. 424 of 2020
1 - Mohammad Kurban Sah S/o Mohd. Rafik Sah Aged About 32 Years
Occupation- Mechanic, Solar Bijli, Resident Of Ranpurkhurd, Police
Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh, District :
Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - Surendra Kumar Bhuiya S/o Tilak Ram Bhuiya Aged About 42 Years
Occupation- Driver, Resident Of Village- Pauradhar, Chouki- Kalim
Mandir, Post- Pauradhar, District- Surguja Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The
Offending Pickup Cg-15-A-5674), District : Surguja (Ambikapur),
Chhattisgarh
2 - Shashikant Singh S/o Gajendra Narayan Singh Aged About 49 Years
Occupation- Pickup Vehicle Owner, Resident Of Kitab Ghar, Gandhi
Stadium Complex Ambikapur, Police Station And Tahsil- Ambikapur,
District- Surguja Chhattisgarh (Owner Of The Offending Pickup Cg-15-A-
5674), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through- Branch Manager,
The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Ambikapur, District- Surguja
Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Offending Pickup Cg-15-A-5674), District :
Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh
Digitally
signed by ... Respondent(s)
NISHA NISHA
Date:
DUBEY
DUBEY 2025.04.03
15:49:51
+0530
For Appellant : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate
with Ms. Kalyani Kashyap, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1 & 2: None
For Respondent No.3 : Ms. Veethika Choubey, Advocate on
behalf of Mr. T.K. Tiwari, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu
Judgment On Board
28/03/2025
1. Notice sent to respondents No.1 & 2 returned unserved.
2. In the impugned award, learned Claims Tribunal has held
respondent No.3 Insurance Company liable to satisfy the
amount of compensation. Liability fastened upon respondent
No.3 to satisfy the amount of compensation is not challenged
nor disputed before this Court, hence, service of notice to
respondents No.1 & 2 is dispensed with. With the consent of
parties, the case is heard finally.
3. Claimant-appellant has preferred this appeal under Section
173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act of
1988') challenging award dated 03.02.2020 passed by learned
7th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja(for
short 'the Claims Tribunal') in M.A.C.T. Case No.246/2018,
whereby the Claims Tribunal allowed claim application in part
and awarded total compensation of Rs.1,02,803/- along with
interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of application till its
realization.
4. Brief facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that in the
night of 24.03.2017 at 08:45 pm, when appellant along with
Sobarati and Israfil were standing besides the road and
discussing about their work, at that time one pickup vehicle
bearing registration No.CG15/A/5674, driven in high speed,
rashly and negligently by non-applicant No.1, dashed them
and caused accident. In the said accident, appellant suffered
grievious injuries on his right knee, elbow, back and other
parts of body including fracture in thigh. Appellant was treated
in District Hospital Ambikapur from 24.03.2017 to 05.04.2017.
Incident was reported in Police Station Ambikapur based on
which Crime No.138/17 was registered against non-applicant
No.1. During treatment, appellant underwent surgery and a
iron rod was implanted, which requires further surgery.
Appellant filed an application before competent Claims
Tribunal claiming an amount of Rs.15,51,000/- as
compensation under the head of grievous injuries, permanent
disability etc.
5. Non-applicant No.1 i.e. driver of offending vehicle, did not
appear before the Claims Tribunal even after notice and
therefore he was proceeded ex-parte.
6. Non-applicant No.2, owner of offending vehicle, filed his reply
to claim application and denied all adverse pleadings made in
application. He has pleaded that non-applicant No.1 was
driving vehicle cautiously & carefully. On the date of accident
non-applicant No.1 was having valid and effective driving
license; the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant
No.1 Insurance Company and as the offending vehicle was
not plied in violation of any of the conditions of insurance
policy, therefore, the insurance company is liable to indemnify
owner in case any compensation is awarded by the Claims
Tribunal.
7. Non-applicant No.3 Insurance Company filed its separate
reply and denied averments made in claim application except
that on the date of accident the offending motorcycle was
insured with it. Driver of offending vehicle was not having valid
and effective driving license and other documents relating to
offending vehicle were also not valid and effective. As the
vehicle was being plied in violation of conditions of insurance
policy, therefore, insurance company is not liable to indemnify
the insured.
8. The Claims Tribunal after appreciating pleadings and
evidence brought on record by the respective parties has
partly allowed claim application by holding that accident
occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of
offending vehicle; claimant had not suffered any permanent
disablement in the said accident; there was no violation of any
condition of insurance policy and accordingly computed and
awarded Rs.1,02,803/- as compensation.
9. Learned counsel for claimant-appellant submits that the
appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement the amount of
compensation, on the ground that the amount of
compensation awarded by learned Claims Tribunal is very
meagre in the facts of the case. Learned Claims Tribunal
erred in assessing the income of appellant as Rs.4,500/- per
month only on notional basis overlooking the date of accident
to be 24.3.2017. He contended that if for any reason learned
Claims Tribunal came to conclusion that the appellant failed to
prove his occupation and the income, then the learned Claims
Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the wages
fixed by the competent authority under the Minimum Wages
Act, 1948 for purpose of computing the amount of
compensation. He further contended that appellant suffered
thigh bone fracture (shaft femur). He also contended that in
the accident there was disfiguration of right thigh bone along
with other injuries of which appellant underwent operation.
The rod was implanted for affixing thigh bone. However,
learned Claims Tribunal has awarded loss of income for 09
days, which is period during which the appellant remained
admitted in the hospital . The amount of compensation has not
been awarded for the loss of income during the laid down
period i.e. from the date of accident till the date of recovery.
He also contended that the amount of compensation under
other heads is also on lower side, hence, the amount of
compensation be suitably enhanced.
10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 vehemently opposes the
submission made by counsel for appellant and would submit
that the amount of compensation as computed by learned
Claims Tribunal in the facts of the case is just and proper,
which does not call for any interference..
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
12. Appellant has produced Ex.P/4 MLC of the appellant done just
after the accident in which in the column of nature of injury it is
mentioned as "pain, tenderness and disfiguration of right
thigh". In the evidence, appellant has categorically stated that
in the accidental injury thigh bone broken into two pieces and
came out of skin. He underwent surgery and a rod was
implanted for joining thigh bone.
13. In the aforementioned facts of the case, the appellant could
not be able to perform his work for the purpose of earning the
livelihood not only for 09 days during which he was admitted
in the hospital for treatment but for further more period till the
injury is recovered. Therefore, in the facts of the case, I find it
appropriate to award loss of income for a period of 4 months
looking to the nature of injury suffered by the appellant. It is
ordered accordingly.
14. So far as the income assessed by learned Claims Tribunal of
the appellant is concerned of Rs.4,500/- per month, in the
opinion of this Court is on lower side. Learned Claims Tribunal
has not discussed as to how the Tribunal has arrived at a
conclusion with respect to assessment of income of the
appellant. In absence of proof of income, it will be appropriate
to consider the wages prevailing in the area and further the
minimum wages fixed by the competent authority of that
period. As per the notification issued by the competent
authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 for a period
from 1.10.2017 till 31.03.2018. The wages fixed for unskilled
laborer for A category cities is Rs.8,320/-, for B category Cities
is Rs.8,060/-, for 'C' category Cities is Rs.7,800/-. Appellant is
resident of District-Ambikapur, therefore, according to the
notification issued, the monthly income of an unskilled laborer
of 'C' category city can be taken as mentioned in the
notification i.e. Rs.7,800/- per month. Hence, the income of
appellant is assessed at Rs.7,800/- per month and
accordingly, the appellant will be entitled for Rs.31,200/-
(7,800x4) towards loss of income during the period of
treatment.
15. From the documents placed on record, it is reflecting that the
initially the appellant took treatment at Ambikapur and
thereafter looking to the nature of injury, he took treatment
from Raipur. He is resident of District-Ambikapur and for the
purpose of travelling the appellant might have expended much
more amount then Rs.2,000/- as awarded by learned Claims
Tribunal, therefore, I find it appropriate to enhance the amount
of compensation under the head of conveyance/transportation
expenses to Rs.10,000/-. Learned Claims Tribunal has
awarded just compensation under the heads of special diet
and attendant.
16. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/-
towards pains and suffering .Considering the entirely of facts
of the case and nature of injury suffered as also considering
that appellant is working as laborer, the amount of
compensation awarded under the head of pains and suffering
is enhanced to Rs.20,000/-.
17. Going by the medical bills, which were produced by appellant,
the Claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.77,503/-, under
the head of medical expenses, which is just and proper and
does not call for any interference.
18. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now, the appellant
will be entitled for total compensation of Rs.1,48,703/- i.e.
Rs.31200/- towards loss of income during laid down period,
Rs.20,000/- for the pains and sufferings; Rs.77,503/- towards
medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- for travelling expenses;
Rs.5000/- for special diet and Rs.5000/- for attendant. This
amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% p.a. from
the date of application till actual payment is made. Rest of the
conditions of the impugned award shall remain as it is. Any
amount of compensation disbursed to appellant pursuant to the
impugned award shall be adjusted.
19. Impugned award passed in MACT Case No.246/2018 is
modified to the extent indicated above.
Sd/-
(Part Prateem Sahu)
Judge
Nisha
