Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2025 DAILYLAW 19590 (CHH)

MAANSINGH DHRUV, v. JATINDER SINGH,

MAC/404/2021 · 2025-09-11

Shri Sachin Singh Rajput

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 404 of 2021 1 - Maansingh Dhruv, S/o Madan Lal Ghruv, Aged About 25 Years R/o - Village Choukbeda, Thasil And District - Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Jatinder Singh, S/o Sohan Singh Saini Aged About 25 Years R/o - Lig 630, Veer Sawarker Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver And Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Near Phaphadi Chowk, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Kunal Das, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Ms. Swati Agrawal on behalf of Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, Order on Board 12.09.2025 1) This appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short “ the M.V Act”) has been filed by the appellant/claimant, being aggrieved by an award dated 03.02.2021 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, District- Dhamtari, (C.G.) (for short ‘learned Tribunal’) in claim case No. 10/2019. 2) By the impugned award against a claim of Rs. 46,00,000/-, the learned Tribunal has awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,23,185/- in favour of the appellant/claimant, on account of the injury sustained by him in an accident that took place on 08.04.2018 by rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle (Truck) bearing registration No. C.G-04-J-0753, driven by respondent No. 1, owned by 2 respondent No. 2 and insured with the respondent No.3. The appellant/claimant pleaded in his claim application that as a result of the accident, his both legs were badly crushed, severed near the thighs, and he also sustained grievous injuries on other parts of the body. He was immediately taken for treatment to the Government Hospital, Dhamtari, where he remained admitted from 08.04.2018 to 11.04.2018 and received medical care. Considering the seriousness of the injuries, the applicant was referred to Shri Narayana Hospital, Raipur for advanced treatment, where he remained admitted from 11.04.2018 to 20.04.2018. For saving the life of the applicant, both his legs had to be amputated above the knees. 3) The claim application was resisted by the respondent No.1 on various grounds. Respondent no. 2/insurance company filed its written statement and denied the averments of the claim application and pleaded that there is violation of terms and condition of the insurance policy. 4) The Learned Tribunal framed 5 issues and decided the same in favour of the appellant/claimant and awarded above stated compensation. 5) Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant vehemently argued that the impugned award is contrary to law and the facts of the case. The learned Court below failed to grant compensation for the loss of income. He further submits that the medical bills were not duly appreciated, resulting in a much lower award, and no compensation was calculated towards special diet, attendant charges, loss of income, or incidental allowances. The learned Court below failed to apply the Minimum Wages Act while assessing the income. The award thus suffers from material irregularities and deserves to be suitably modified and enhanced. 6) Learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 supports the award and submits in view of evidence available on record and findings of the learned Tribunal is justified and just compensation has been awarded. 7) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions and also perused the record. 3 8) The learned Tribunal after assessment of evidence available on record; awarded the compensation to the appellant/claimant in the following manner; Rs. 50,000/- for pain & suffering; Rs. 50,000/- for loss of enjoyment of life; Rs. 1,62,385/- for medical treatment; Rs. 13,60,800/- for loss of future earning. 9) Looking to the date of accident; nature of job; minimum wages prevailing at the time of accident; assesses his monthly income to Rs. 7,500/- and 40% future prospect is added in his income. It is appearing from the evidence that appellant/claimant is a conductor by profession and his both legs got amputated, therefore it would be difficult for him to perform his work. In light of the above and taking guidance from the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another; (2011) 1 SCC 343, Narendra Singh Vs. Nishant Sharma and Another; (2015) 14 SCC 353, Sidram Vs. Divisional Manager United India Insurance Company Limited and Another; (2023) 3 SCC 439, this Court approves the functional disability to 100% as assessed by learned Tribunal. Hence, this Court awards the compensation in the following manner:- S.N Particular Awarded by this Court 1. Monthly Income of the appellant 7,500/- 2. Future Prospects @ 40% 3,000/- 3. Total Income 7,500+ 3,000=10,500/- 4. Total Yearly Income 10,500 X12= 1,26,000/- 5. Multiplier of 18 applied to assess the loss of future earning capacity 1,26,000 X18= 22,68,000/- 6. For pain & suffering 1,00,000/- 7. Loss of enjoyment of life 1,00,000/- 8. For attendant, transportation and nutritional diet 25,000/- 9. For medical treatment 1,62,385/- (as awarded by Tribunal) Total compensation Rs. 26,55,385/- 10) Hence, the enhanced amount of compensation comes to Rs. 26,55,385/- after deducting the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal of Rs. 16,23,185/-, total enhanced amount of compensation comes to the tune of Rs. 10,32,200/-. Therefore the appellant shall be entitled to receive the compensation of Rs. 10,32,200/- with @6% from the date of filing this appeal i.e. 28.06.2021. Respondent No.2/Insurance 4 company shall deposit the same amount within 60 days. On such deposit being made, 75% amount shall be invested in the name of appellant/claimant for a period of 2 years in FDR at any Nationalized Bank, rest of the amount shall be paid to appellant/claimant through bank transaction/account payee cheque. 11) Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.09.18 17:02:00 +0530