1 2025:CGHC:22990 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1833 of 2019 1 - Smt. Mohani Bai Jaiswal W/o Rambahoran Jaiswal Aged About 62 Years 2 - Rambahoran Jaiswal Aged About 70 Years, Both are R/o At Near Shahid Bhagat Singh School, Bandhwapara, Sarkanda, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, --- Appellants versus 1 - Satanand Singh S/o Murari Singh Aged About 48 Years R/o Shivaji Ward, Mungeli, Police Station Mungeli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. (Bus Driver Bearing Number Cg 10 G/0957) 2 - Smt. Kiran Singh Thakur W/o Yogendra Singh Thakur, R/o Near Sindhi Dharmshala, Raipur Road, Mungeli, Police Station Mungli, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. 3 - I F C O Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited Beside Sanjay Apartment, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Vehicle Number C G 10 G/0957), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Prashant Gupta, Advocate Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Sourabh Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 11/06/2025 1. Claimants/appellants have filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act of 1988’) seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 31.07.2019 passed in Claim Case No.664/2017 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.54,013/- as compensation in a death case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that applicant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 seeking total compensation of Rs.29,48,000/- under different heads pleading therein that on 17.02.2017, the deceased, Shyamkant Jaiswal accompanied by his father went to visit his sister’s house in Village Kodapuri. From the Maharana Pratap Chowk bus stop in Bilaspur, his father helped him to board Bus number CG 10 G 0957. His father informed the bus- conductor about the disability of Shyamkant Jaiswal and specifically requested that the deceased be assisted in alighting carefully at Jora Para Chowk (Mochh). At approximately 16:45, when the bus arrived at Jora Para Chowk, the deceased started to step down from the vehicle. However, the driver of the bus, acting in a negligent and hasty manner, abruptly moved the bus forward. As a result, the right leg of Shyamkant Jaiswal became trapped in the bus and he was dragged, leading to a severe ankle fracture. He was immediately taken to Gayatri Hospital, Bilaspur for medical treatment and looking to his serious condition, he was subsequently admitted to Kalyani Hospital, 3 Bilaspur where during the course of treatment, he died on 25.02.2017. It was further pleaded that at the time of accident, deceased Shyamkant Jaiswal was 30 years of healthy and he was doing service in grocery shop and was earning Rs.8,000/- per month. He was also performing agriculture operations and the claimants were dependent upon him. 3. The Insurance Company along with owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed their reply to the claim application and resisted the claim of appellants/claimants. The learned Claims Tribunal framed issues and after recording the evidence of the respective parties, passed the impugned award rejected the claim of the appellants against the death of deceased Shymkant Jaiswal holding that the death of the deceased was not on account of motor accidental injuries and only awarded compensation towards medical expenses. 4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the learned Claims Tribunal has erroneously rejected the claim of the appellants against the death of Shyamkant Jaiswal i.e. son of claimants and have only awarded meager sum towards medical expenses. He contended that death of son of claimant is a result of motor accidental injuries suffered by him, therefore, the claimants are entitled for compensation against the death of their son. 5. Learned counsel for respective respondents vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for appellants and would submit that in the motor vehicle accident, the deceased suffered only fracture of femur bone and there is no serious or grievous injuries on other parts of the body. He took treatment for fracture injury at Gayatri Hospital, 4 Bilaspur and thereafter looking to the other disease with which the deceased was suffering i.e. sickle-cell crisis, he was referred to Kalyani Hospital, Bilaspur, however, during the course of treatment, son of claimants died. He also pointed out the document (Ex.P-25), which is filed by claimants before the Claims Tribunal, wherein it is specific mention that death of Shyamkant Jaiswal is due to disease with which he was suffering i.e. sickle-cell crisis and nature of death mentioned in the document Ex.P-26 at Page No.8 is natural death and not on account of motor accidental injuries suffered by the deceased. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. It is the case of the claimants that Shyamkant Jaiswal, son of claimants met with an accident on 17.02.2017. The claimants have submitted documents of Gayatri Hospital in which upon diagnosis it is found as Supra condylar (RL) femoral pathological. Claimants have also filed documents of treatment of deceased of Kalyani Hospital and Maternity Home, Bilaspur, wherein it is recorded that he was suffering with Sickle-Cell Anemia referred from Gayatri Hospital. He suffered fracture of right femur supra-condylar one week ago. Claimants have further enclosed certificate of cause of death in Form No. -4, which is proved by Dr. Preena Shukla (NAW-1). She stated that deceased was referred from Gayatri Hospital for treatment of Sickle-Cell crises and during the course of treatment he died on account of disease with which he was suffering i.e. Sickle-Cell Anemia. The cause of death is mentioned in the document as natural. 8. Learned Claims Tribunal on appreciation of pleadings and the evidence (documentary and oral) came to the conclusion that 5 Shymkant Jaiswal did not died due to the motor accidental injuries suffered by him, however, the death is on account of other previous disease with which the deceased was suffering i.e. Sickle-Cell Anemia and have recorded a finding that claimants are not entitled for any compensation on account of death of Shyamkant Jaiswal as the death of deceased is not on account of the motor accidental injuries. The said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal is based on documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the respective parties which in the opinion of this Court does not suffer from any perversity or illegality, hence, it does not call for any interference. 9. So far as the submission of learned counsel for appellant that the amount of compensation even if for the injuries suffered by the deceased is concerned is on lower side, the Claims Tribunal after appreciating the medical bills have awarded an amount of Rs.28,013/- and further awarded Rs.20,000/- towards attendant, special diet and pain and suffering and conveyance and have also awarded Rs.6,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment. 10. In the aforementioned facts of the case it is appearing that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amount of Rs.20,000/- only on other heads like attendant, special diet, pain and suffering and transportation, which requires to be enhanced. Considering the facts of the case and looking to the injuries suffered and the period of treatment I find it appropriate to enhance the said amount from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.40,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 11. On the basis of above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- 6 S.N. Head Amount. 1. For medical expenses : Rs.28,013.00 2. For attendant, special diet, pain and suffering and for conveyance : Rs.40,000.00 3. For loss of income : Rs. 6,000.00 Total Compensation : Rs.74,013.00 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.74,013. Any amount paid to the appellants as compensation as per award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Other conditions of award shall remain intact. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the award impugned stands modified to the extent indicated above. Sd/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Balram