1 2025:CGHC:27650 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 2303 of 2019 1 - Kumari Ritu Ubharani D/o Late Kailash Chandra Ubharani Aged About 23 Years R/o Sai Campus, Shrikant Verma Marg, Thana Tarbahar, Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus 1 - Ramnaresh Jaiswal S/o Jagannath Jaiswal , R/o Village Kathar Post Karondiya, Thana - Rampur Naikin District - Sidhi ( M. P. ) Hall Mukam Aman Transport , Transport Nagar Bilaspur District - Bilaspur ( C.G.) ( Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C. G. 04 / J. A. / 1258) (Driver ) 2 - Abdul Shahid S/o Abdul Samad R/o Lalkhadan Mahmand Road Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C. G. 04 / J. A. / 1258) ( Owner ), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Divisional Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office, Rama 1st Trade Center Near - Bus Stand . In Front Of Rajeev Plaza Bilaspur Tahsil And District - Bilaspur ( C.G. ) ( Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Truck No. C. G. 04 / J. A. / 1258) (Insurer ) --- Respondents For Appellant : Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Ritesh Verma, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order On Board 25/06/2025 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 third Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (for short ‘the BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN Digitally signed by BALRAM PRASAD DEWANGAN 2 Claims Tribunal’) vide award dated 24.10.2019 passed in Claim Case No.552/2014 thereby allowing application in part and awarding Rs.5,33,498/- as compensation in an injury case. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Act of 1988 claiming total compensation of Rs.27,70,000/- under different heads pleading therein that on 14.04.2011, Balram Ubharani, his father Kailash Chandra, mother Smt. Rajkumari Ubharani and other family members had gone to Raipur for some family work in a car and after completing the work, they were returning to Bilaspur via Raipur-Bilaspur main road at around 01:00 AM in the night. Kailash Chandra was driving his car carefully from his side and a motor cycle was going ahead at some distance from him. As soon as they reached near Haddi Godam situated at Vishrampur, one Truck no. CG-04-JA1258 coming from the opposite direction driven by non-applicant No.1 in a rash and negligent manner lost control over his vehicle and hit the motor cycle going in front of car and thereafter hit the car driven by Kailash Chandra Ubhrani going on the side of the road and caused an accident. In the accident car got completely damaged and Kailash Chandra Ubhrani who was driving the car died on the spot and mother Rajkumari Ubhrani along with Balram Das and applicant Ritu Ubhrani sustained serious injuries. It was pleaded that the appellant suffered injuries on her head, hands, both legs, face and chest. She was admitted in the hospital where she took treatment as inpatient from 14.04.2011 to 23.05.2011. Thereafter, she took continuous treatment for long time. It 3 was further pleaded that due to abnormal mental condition of the appellant, she was taken to Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad for treatment. 3. The non-applicant No.2 filed his reply refuting the claim allegation and pleaded that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of car. The appellant has not suffered any injuries in the accident. It was also pleaded that the vehicle was duly insured with non-applicant No.3. Insurance Company/non-applicant No.3 also filed its reply denying the averments made in the claim application and it was pleaded that the accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the car, who was not having any valid and effective driving license. It was pleaded that the accident occurred due to collision of two vehicle, therefore, the principles of contributory negligence will apply. 4. The learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the pleadings and the evidence brought on record by respective parties, held that accident was result of rash and negligent driving of offending truck by non-applicant No.1, appellant – Ritu suffered grievous injury, not permanent disability, contributory negligence of car driver not found to be proved, allowed the claim application in part and awarded total compensation of Rs.5,33,498/-. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation on the ground that the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded less amount of compensation in the facts of the case. In the accident, appellant suffered injuries over her head affecting the brain for which she took treatment from Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur with Dr. S.N. Madhariya, Neurologist. The doctor was examined before the Claims 4 Tribunal and he stated that looking to the category of injures suffered by claimant, she could not able to recover and her mental function will not be 100% as she utilizing prior to the accident. He contended that as per MRI report appellant/suffered “difuse axonalinjury with blunt injury chest with nasal bone history ', which is serious in nature. Appellant for recovery from injuries have taken continuous treatment from Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur and thereafter Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad, however, leaned Claims Tribunal has awarded meager amount of compensation. Not awarded any amount towards conveyance expenses, awarded meager amount of Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income overlooking the nature of injuries, period of treatment as inpatient and further the treatment at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. The appellant could not able to work for considerable period due to the nature of injuries suffered on her head and proved by Dr. S.N. Madhariya (A.W-2). The amount of compensation awarded under the head of special diet pains and suffering is also on lower side. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 vehemently opposes the submission of learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that the learned Claims Tribunal upon appreciation of the documentary and oral evidence brought on record by the appellant has awarded entire medical claim and considering the evidence of the doctor has awarded loss of income etc. The compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper, which does not call for any interference. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 would submit that the liability to indemnify the insured is upon the respondent No.3/Insurance 5 Company. The submission of learned counsel for respondent No.2 is not disputed by learned counsel for the respondent No.3. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents placed on record. 9. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation under the following heads : No. Heads Compensation 1. For disability Nill 2. Loss of monthly income Rs.15,000/- 3. Medical expenses Rs.4,83,498/- 4. Special diet & Conveyance expenses Rs.15,000/- 5. For future treatment Nill 6. For mental pain and suffering Rs.20,000/- 10. The claimant has placed on record discharge summary of Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur, Department of Neurosurgery, in which it is mentioned that appellant took treatment as inpatient from 14.04.2011 till 23.05.2011. In final diagnosis it is mentioned as head injuries with defuse axonal injuries, with blunt injuries, chest with nasal bone history. The said discharge summary is filed as Ex.A-29. Ex.A-13 is prescription of Dr. Alimchandani of Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad dated 12.03.2012, Ex.A-15 is prescription dated 11.06.2012, Ex.A-16 is medical prescription of Dr. Kumar dated 11.06.2012 and Ex.A-17 is dated 12.03.2012. From the aforementioned documents it is evident that after suffering with motor accidental injuries, appellant took treatment from Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur as also from Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad. 6 11. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount of compensation towards conveyance expenses, considering the nature of injuries, the mental status of the appellant/claimant during the course of her treatment as stated by Dr. S.N. Madhariya (AW-2) in his deposition, hence I find it appropriate to award Rs.30,000/- towards conveyance expenses. 12. Learned Claims Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards attendant. The date of accident is 14.04.2011, appellant took inpatient treatment from the date of accident i.e. 14.4.2011 and till 23.05.2011 from the Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur. She further visited Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad and definitely might have been assisted by some attendant with her. Considering the aforementioned facts of the case and looking to the nature injuries, the appellant might have required assistance and help by one person for about six months and even thereafter, and therefore, I find it appropriate to award Rs.36,000/- towards the attendant. The learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards the loss of income. The learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the nature of injuries, period of treatment as inpatient and further medical prescription of treatment at Apollo Hospital, Hyderabad and evidence of the doctor, while computing the amount of compensation under the head of loss of income. The claimant in her examination-in-chief has stated that she was running a coaching class and earning Rs.15,000/- - Rs.20,000/- per month, which has not been proved in accordance with law. However, looking to the age of the appellant/claimant of 23 years major girl and being an educated persons, I find it appropriate to assess the income of 7 appellant as Rs.6,000/- per month. As the Court has held that she might have taken assistance for about six months during the period of treatment while suffering with the motor accidental injuries, I find it appropriate to award the loss of income for a period of six months, which comes to Rs.36,000/-. 13. Leaned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pains and suffering. The appellant who is major and unmarried girl has suffered grievous injuries, the doctor in his evidence before the learned Claims Tribunal has stated that the category of the injury which the patient suffered, she will not be able to perform 100% mental function like earlier, which shows that she has suffered permanent disability of his mental strength and it may also affect her marriage prospects. This evidence is by the treating doctor, who is neurologist at Ram Krishna Care Hospital, Raipur, his evidence with respect to the nature of injuries and suffering post treatment cannot be overruled. The learned Claims Tribunal has not considered the evidence of the doctor in its true perspective, therefore, in the opinion of this Court the compensation towards mental pain and suffering is liable to be increased and it is accordingly enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. In the facts of the case I also find it appropriate to award Rs.50,000/- towards the loss of marriage prospects, Rs.50,000/- towards loss of amenities in life and Rs.50,000/- towards grievous injuries suffered by appellant. Counsel for the appellant could not be able to point out as to the Claim Tribunal has overlooked or escaped consideration on any of the medical bills placed on record, therefore, I do not find any error in the 8 award of compensation under the head of medical expenses which is of Rs.4,83,498/-. 14. On the basis of above, the compensation calculated by the Tribunal is recomputed as under :- SN Head Amount (in Rs.). 1. For conveyance expenses : 30,000.00 2. For attendant : 36,000.00 3. For loss of income (For period of six months : 36,000.00 4. For pains and suffering : 50,000.00 5. For loss of marrige prospects : 50,000.00 6. For loss of amenities : 50,000.00 7. For loss of grievous injuries : 50,000.00 8. For medical expenses : 4,83,498.00 Grand Total : 7,85,498.00 15. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. Now the appellant shall be entitled for total compensation of Rs.7,85,498.00. Any amount paid to the appellant as compensation as per impugned award shall be adjusted. Enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 16. 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