Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ramchandra Ojha vs Radhacharan Sharma on 1 May, 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 1 st OF MAY, 2024
MISC. APPEAL No. 2354 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
RAMCHANDRA OJHA S/O BHAGRI PRASAD @
BHAGARILAL @ BADARILAL OJHA, AGED ABOUT 65
YEARS, R/O VILL PACHAURI TEH PORSA P.S. PORSA,
DISTRICT MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI AKHLESH KUMAR GUPTA - ADVOCATE)
AND
1. RADHACHARAN SHARMA S/O SHRI
SHAMBHUDAYAL SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 46
YEARS, R/O IN FRONT OF G D SCHOOL
GANGARAM WALI GALI BEHIND DOCK BANGALA
GANDHI NAGAR PORSA DISTRICT MORENA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. SONU @ SUMNESH SHARMA S/O RADHACHARAN
SHARMA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/O IN FRONT
OF G.D. SCHOOL GANGARAM WALI GALI BEHIND
DOCK BANGALA GANDHI NAGAR PORSA DISTT.
MORENA (MADHYA PRADESH)
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY
LIMITED, M.S. ROAD MORENA DISTT. MORENA
AT PRESENT PHOOL BAAG CHAURAHA LASHKAR
GWALIOR THROUGH DIVISIONAL MANAGER
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENTS
( RESPONDENT NO. 3 BY SHRI R.V.SHARMA - ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
following:
ORDER
Assailing the award dated 28/2/2022 passed by the Second Additional
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambah, District Morena in Claim Case No.
57/2018, on the point of inadequacy of the compensation, the appellant/claimant
has preferred this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.
Learned Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,89,513/- to the
appellant/claimant for the injuries sustained by him in road accident dated
21/3/2008.
2. The appellant, had filed a claim petition under Sections 166 and 140 of the
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 37,35,000/-
for the injuries sustained by him in road accident dated 21/3/2008. The reply to
the claim petition was filed and after recording the evidence, the Tribunal
awarded a sum of Rs.3,89,513/- in total; however, since Claims Tribunal found
that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of Insurance Policy, the
respondents No. 3 Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability and
instead respondents No. 1 and 2 were fastened with the liability, at the same
time Insurance Company was directed to make the payment of compensation
amount first; however, right was reserved in its favour to recover the same from
respondents No. 1 and 2.
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 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. As observed supra, it is an injury case. On 21/3/2018 at about 1 pm when
appellant was returning to his home and as soon as he reached in front of the
Compressor Shop of Rajest Jatav, it is alleged that due to rash and negligent
driving of auto /Tempo No. MP06L1042, vehicle dashed him, due to which he
sustained grievous hurts in head, back and also sustained fracture and
permanent disablement, which gave rise to filing of claim petition, out of which
this appeal arises seeking enhancement of compensation amount. The case was
contested by the respondents. Parties adduced evidence. The Claims Tribunal
after recording evidence and hearing the parties, by impugned award partly
allowed the claim petition filed by claimants and as stated supra, awarded a sum
of Rs. 3,89,513/- alongwith interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date
of claim petition.
5. Shri Gupta, learned counsel representing the appellant contends that the
injuries sustained by the appellant were grievous in nature. the appellant used to
earn Rs. 20,000/- per month prior to accident and therefore, the amount under
the head loss of earnings appears to be on the lower side. The Tribunal has only
awarded Rs. 3,89,513/- towards medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of
earnings, attender charges and special diet which is on the lower side. No
amount has been awarded under the head grievous hurt; whereas, the appellant
suffered fracture and permanent disablement, and thus the compensation
awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate, without looking to the nature of
grievous injuries sustained, hospitalization, medical bills. In view of the
foregoing submissions, the enhancement of the compensation so awarded by
the Tribunal has been prayed for.
6. On the other hand Shri Sharma, 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. None
appeared on behalf of the other respondents. None appeared on behalf of
respondents No. 1 and 2 to contest the appeal.
7. 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,
considering the nature of injuries especially fracture sustained, 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. 1,00,000/- in lump sum thereby making the total compensation
Rs.4,89,513/-.
8. 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. 1,00,000/- in addition to the amount of compensation already awarded
by the Claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount shall carry any interest as per the
impugned award. The other conditions as imposed by claims Tribunal regarding
breach of Insurance Policy, exoneration of Insurance Company and direction to
Insurance Company to make the payment of compensation amount first to the
claimant and thereafter recover the same from respondent No. 2, shall remain
intact.
With the aforesaid modification in the impugned award the appeal stands
allowed in part.
(ROOPESH CHANDRA VARSHNEY)
JAI Digitally signed by JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA
PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,
JUDGE
PRAKASH JPS/-
2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec86
5c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a,
postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh,
serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072
SOLANKI
A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522
, cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI
Date: 2024.05.06 10:23:50 +05'30'
