Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kumar Singh vs Achche Khan on 2 January, 2024
Author: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
Bench: Roopesh Chandra Varshney
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY
ON THE 2 nd OF JANUARY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 312 of 2017
BETWEEN:-
SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI CHEDI SINGH,
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, OCCUPATION PRIVATE JOB,
R/O A-21 SAI NAGAR HARISHANKARPURAM GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI DEEPAK KUMAR GUPTA- ADVOCATE )
AND
1. ACHCHE KHAN S/O SHRI SATTAR KHAN R/O
NOORGANJ SEWA NAGAR GWALIOR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
2. SHOBANATH PATEL S/O DEV NARAYAN PATEL
R/O VIJAY NAGAR GADAIPURA GWALIOR
(MADHYA PRADESH)
3. HDFC AGRO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED RAMAN HOUSE HT PAREKH MARG 169
BACKWAY RECLAMATION, MUMBAI
(MAHARASHTRA)
.....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENTS NO. 1 AND 2 BY SHRI TRISHANT MISHRA - ADVOCATE
AND RESPONDENT NO. 3 BY SHRI B.K.AGRAWAL - ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
Assailing the award dated 7/12/2016 passed by the Ninth Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 113/2015, on the
point of inadequacy of the compensation, the injured appellant has preferred
this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for an accident
took place on 28/8/2014 in which he sustained injuries i.e. three fractures in right
leg below knee alongwith other injuries.
2. The appellant had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor
Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 22,02,000/- for the
injuries sustained by him. The reply to the claim petition was filed and after
recording the evidence, the Tribunal found it to be a case of grievous injury and
awarded a sum of Rs.1,96,375/- in total in various heads by passing the
impugned award.
3. As the incident occurred, negligence of driver of driving the offending
vehicle, the issue of liability jointly and severally to pay compensation have been
decided recording the findings in favour of the appellant by the Tribunal and
none of those findings have been assailed at the instance of the respondents i.e.
owner, driver or insurance company by filing the cross-appeal or the cross-
objection, it is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail to burden the
judgment on the said issues. It is only the inadequacy of the compensation
which has been assailed, however the arguments in detail have been considered
in succeeding paragraphs.
4. Shri Gupta, learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the
injuries sustained by the appellant were grievous in nature. It is also submitted
that on account of grievous injuries and the period for which, the appellant has
undergone treatment and assessment of his income, the Tribunal has committed
an error in not recording the finding in correct perspective. He could not have
performed the work properly during or after the treatment, and earn the means
which he was earning prior to the accident. He further submits that the
compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate, without looking to
the permanent disablement or the grievous injuries sustained, hospitalization,
medical bills and the loss of earning during treatment and future loss of earning
and further the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal under the head special
died and attender charges is on the lower side. In view of the foregoing
submissions, the enhancement of the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal
has been prayed for.
5. On the other hand Shri Agrawal, learned counsel representing the
respondent /Insurance Company contends in support of the findings of the
Claims Tribunal and submitted that the compensation as awarded by the
impugned award appears to be just and reasonable, however, interference by
this Court for enhancement of the compensation is not warranted.
6. After having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and on perusal
of the pleadings and the evidence so adduced, in the opinion of this Court, the
amount of compensation as awarded by teh Claims Tribunal under the heads
special died and attender charges as well as the fact that appellant had
undergone treatment for near about one year at Gwalior and Delhi, appear to be
on lower side, therefore, considering the nature of injuries, treatment papers
and its period, the mental pain and suffering and also the other heads, the
compensation as awarded by the Claims Tribunal is liable to be enhanced by
Rs. 50,000/- in lump sum thereby making the total compensation Rs. 2,46,375/-
which shall be payable along with the interest from the date of filing of the claim
petition.
7. In view of the forgoing discussions, the appeal succeeds and is hereby
allowed in part. The appellant is held entitled to receive the enhanced amount
of Rs. 50,000/- in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded by
the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry interest @ 7 % per
annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its realization. Rest of the
conditions as imposed by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact. In the facts
of the case, parties are directed to bear their own costs.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JUDGE
JPS/-
