Lakshi Shakya vs Govind Bediya
2024 Latest Caselaw 12693 MP

Madhya Pradesh High Court

Lakshi Shakya vs Govind Bediya on 6 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 6 th OF MAY, 2024
                    MISC. APPEAL No. 3033 of 2022

BETWEEN:-
LAKSHI SHAKYA W/O SHIVNARAYAN SHAKYA, AGED
ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/O VILL SAHSRAM TEH VIJAYPUR
DISTRICT SHEOPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                             ..... APPELLANT
(BY SHRI R.P.GUPTA - ADVOCATE )

AND
1.    GOVIND BEDIYA S/O SEVAK BEDIYA, R/O VILL.
      DABARPURA POST KAKRAUA TEH POHARI
      DISTRICT   SHIVPURI  (MADHYA    PRADESH)
      (DRIVER AND OWNER)

2.    NATIONAL    INSURANCE  COMPANY     LTD.
      JAYENDRAGANJ LASHKAR GWALIOR THROUGH
      DIVISIONAL MANAGER (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(RESPONDENT NO. 2 BY SHRI S.N.GAJENDRAGADKAR - ADVOCATE )

      T h is appeal coming on for orders      this day, t h e court passed the

following:
                                  ORDER

Assailing the award dated 13/5/2022 passed by the Tenth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gwalior in Claim Case No. 1081/2020, on t h e 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. 40,000/- to the appellant/claimant for the injuries sustained by her in road accident dated

30/8/2020.

2. The appellant, had filed a claim petition under Sections 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 5,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in road accident dated 30/8/2020. The reply to the claim petition was filed and after recording the evidence, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.40,000/- in total; however, since Claims Tribunal found that the offending vehicle was being plied in breach of Insurance Policy, the respondents No. 2 Insurance Company was exonerated from the liability and instead respondent No. 1 was 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 respondent No. 1.

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 30/8/2020 at about 1 pm when appellant alongwith her son Nandkishore was coming back to her house on a motorcycle from Bairad Road and reached at Bairad Gopalpur Tiraha, it is alleged that due to rash and negligent driver of respondent No. 1, his motorcycle hit the motorcycle of appellant, due to which she sustained fracture

in left hand and other parts of the body, 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. 40,000/- 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 as she sustained fracture in radius ulna bone of left hand and also a large would on her hand and after the accident she found herself unable to do work which she used to do prior to accident i.e. labour work and thereby she used to earn Rs. 10,000/- per month. She could not work for six months and treatment is still going on, therefore, the amount under the head loss of earnings appears to be on the lower side. The Tribunal has only awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards medical expenses, pain and suffering, loss of earnings, and special diet which is on the lower side. No amount has been awarded under the head grievous hurt, 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, t h e enhancement of the

compensation so awarded by the Tribunal has been prayed for.

6. On the other hand Shri Gajendragadkar, 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. 30,000/- in lump sum thereby making the total compensation Rs.70,000/-.

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. 30,000/- 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) JUDGE JPS/-

JAI

DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH BENCH GWALIOR,

PRAKASH 2.5.4.20=287738d30aabaeda9b10cecdf179cec8 65c7633f4cfb9e38ce14fcbb05b9522a, postalCode=474001, st=Madhya Pradesh, serialNumber=8D6BC1C9FCE36623D0BD6B8072

SOLANKI A2D8C01433EBD48AE4F609F108CA8F8DE6B522 , cn=JAI PRAKASH SOLANKI Date: 2024.05.09 11:31:29 +05'30'