1 2025:CGHC:14110 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1660 of 2017 Santosh Khushlani S/o Late Tahkan Das Kushlani, Aged About 50 Years R/o Jabadapara, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - Bhagvat Prasad S/o Santram, Aged About 29 Years R/o Gram Amsena, Police Station Hirri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Driver Auto Bearing No. C.G. 10/ T/0311 , Chhattisgarh) 2 - Mukesh Kumar Srivas, S/o Shri Laxman Prasad Srivas, R/o Imlibhata, Bandhwapara, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh (Owner Auto Bearing No. C. G. 10/ T/0311, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh) 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Regional Manager Regional Office, In Front Of Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh (Insurance Company Auto Bearing No. C. G. 10/ T/ 0311) ---Respondents _____________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Shri Virendra Verma, Advocate. For Respondent No. 3 : Shri H.P. Agrawal, Advocate. Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 ____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Judgment on Board 24.03.2025 1. The Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Claimant/appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act of 1988') questioning the legality and propriety of the award dated 02.08.2017 passed by the learned Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 113/2010, whereby the learned Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has awarded the total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.4,41,383/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant. 2. During the pendency of the claim petition before the Claims Tribunal, the original appellant namely Tahkan Das Kushlani died, therefore, his son namely Santosh Kushlani (present appellant) has been substituted being the legal heir. 3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 26.08.2009 at around 7.00 AM, Tahkan Das Kushlani. went for morning ride on his Active Moped Bearing No. CG-10-EB-4969 and he was driving his Moped very cautiously as always, when he reached beyond Lodhipara, Sarkanda to the main road i.e. Ratanpur, one Auto Bearing No. CG-10- T-0311 driven by respondent No. 1 herein, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the Activa Moped of the claimant as a result of which, Tahkan Das Kushlani fell down from the motorcycle and sustained grievous injuries over his head, left leg, let arm. Thereafter, the people informed his family members about the incidence and took him to the 3 CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur where looking to gravity of his injuries, he was referred to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. Report regarding the alleged accident was lodged at Police Station- Dantewada based upon which crime bearing No. 27/12 under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of IPC was registered against the respondent No. 1-driver. At the time of accident, the offending vehicle was owned by respondent No. 2 and insured with respondent No. 3. 4. After evaluating the evidence available on record, the learned Tribunal recorded its finding that since the offending vehicle was insured with respondent No.3- Insurance Company, held it accountable to pay compensation first and awarded the compensation of Rs. 4,41,383/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum in favour of the appellant/claimant from the date of award till realization. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the impugned award is contrary to the material available on record. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only medical expenses of Rs. 4,41,383/-, but no amount towards special diet, conveyance and attendant has been awarded, therefore, the compensation is required to be enhanced suitably under the aforesaid heads. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company supporting the award impugned submits that the learned Claims Tribunal considering all the relevant aspects of the matter in the light of judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in Smt. Bhagwati Bai and Others vs. Bablu and others, reported in A.I.R. 2007 M.P. 38 as rightly awarded the medical expenses towards loss of estate and as such, the present appeal being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 4 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. It is not in dispute that original claimant Tahkan Das Kushlani sustained injuries in a motor accident on 26.08.2009 and he filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1966. However, during pendency of the petition, he died and the claim case was contested by his son on his behalf as a injury case. 9. Learned Claims Tribunal considering the oral and documentary evidence available on record, rightly awarded the medical expenses of Rs. 4,41,383/- towards loss of estate to the claimant. However, it has fallen in error in denying the compensation for special diet, conveyance and attendant in view of the fact that the deceased (Tahkan Das Kushlani) claimant was hospitalized for period of about one month. Thus, in this view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the amount awarded by the Claims Tribunal deserves to be enhanced and claimant is entitled for compensation as under:- S.No. Particular Awarded by the Tribunal (Rs.) Awarded by this Court (Rs.) 1. Medical Expenses 4,41,383/- 4,41,383/- 2. For Special Diet Nil 30,000/- 3. For Conveyance Nil 15,000/- 4. For Attendant Nil 15,000/- Total 4,41,383/- 5,01,383/- 10.Thus, the total compensation including the amount awarded on conventional heads comes to Rs. 5,01,383/- for which the claimant is entitled. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 4,41,383/-, after deducting the same the claimant/appellant is entitled for enhanced amount of Rs.60,000/-. This additional amount of compensation shall 5 carry interest @ 6 % p.a. from the date of filing of claim application till its realization. The amount received by the claimant, if any, shall be adjusted in the enhanced sum. However, rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 11. Appeal is partly allowed with modification in the impugned award to the extent as indicated herein above. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge AMIT PATEL