1 2025:CGHC:59461 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 570 of 2019 1 - Piyush Sahu Aged About 05 Years, Minor Through Legal Guardian Mother Smt. Annu Sahu W/o Dinesh Sahu, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village - 1 Gram, Kalyanpur, Post Devnagar, Police Station And District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh And 2 - Mowa, Police Station Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Narendra Singh S/o Vifal Singh R/o Village Amgaon, Police Station Ramanuj Nagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manoj Kumar Sahu S/o Shri Prasad Sahu, R/o Village Salhi, Karmadi, Police Station Ramanuj Nagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh., District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Kachchari Chowk Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) MAC No. 661 of 2019 1 - The Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Represented Through Its Asstt. Manager, T.P. Hub, Divisional Office, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ---Petitioner(s) Versus NIRMALA RAO 2 1 - Piyush Sahu Aged About 8 Years, Through Guardian Mother Smt. Annu Sahu, W/o Dinesh Sahu, Aged 30 Years, R/o 1-Village Kalyanpur, Post Office Devnagar, Police Station And District Surajpur Chhattisgarh And Add - 2 - Mowa, Police Station Pandri, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant ), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Narendra Singh, S/o Viphal Singh, R/o Aamgaon, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Driver ), District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Manoj Kumar Sahu W/o Shree Prasad Sahu, R/o Village Salhi, Police Station Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh. (Owner ), District : Surajpur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - For Claimant : Shri A.D. Kuldeep, Advocate. For Insurance Company : Shri Bennoon, Advocate holding the brief of Shri R.N. Pusty, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 08.12.2025 1. MAC No.570 of 2019 has been preferred by the claimant for enhancement whereas, MAC No.661 of 2019 has been preferred by the Insurance Company challenging the liability as well as the quantum of the compensation. 2. These appeals have been preferred against the award passed by the learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 115 of 2016 dated 29.11.2018 whereby the learned Tribunal has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.5,55,000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum on account of injuries sustained 3 by the claimant. 3. The facts, in brief, are that on 20.9.2015, the driver of the offending Tractor bearing registration No.C.G. 15A-6966 by driving it rashly and negligently dashed the claimant – Piyush Sahu, aged about 5 years, resultantly, he sustained serious injuries. Initially, he was admitted at Government hospital Ramanuj Nagar, later on, he was referred to Medishine Hospital, Raipur, where he remained hospitalized from 21.9.2015 to 27.10.2015. The claimant claimed a sum of Rs.40,20,000/-. The driver and owner of the offending Tractor filed their reply and denied the contents of the application. The Insurance Company also filed its reply and took the plea that there was negligence on the part of the claimant himself and there was delay of 22 days in lodging the FIR. Learned Tribunal framed issues, parties led their evidence and thereafter, an award was passed. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that the learned Tribunal failed to award just and proper compensation. He would contend that at the time of accident, the claimant aged about 5 years sustained grievous abdominal injuries including rupture of pancreas. He would submit that the doctors operated him and he remained hospitalized for one month. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has honoured the medical bills to the tune of Rs.4,75,000/-. It is argued by counsel for the claimant that the learned Tribunal has awarded a meagre amount of Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.30,000/- towards future medical expenses. He would contend that no amount has been awarded under other heads such as special diet, conveyance and attendant. He would contend that according to the evidence of the doctor, the learned Tribunal 4 should have awarded just and proper compensation for future medical expenses. He would pray to enhance the compensation. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Insurance Company would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the claimant. He would refer Ex.P/6 discharge summary wherein it is stated that tyre of the tractor fell over the abdomen of the child and resultantly, he sustained injuries. He would contend that there was delay of 22 days in lodging the FIR. With regard to contention made by Shri A.D. Kuldeep, Shri Bennoon would submit that the learned Tribunal has granted just and proper compensation. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents present on the record with utmost circumspection. 7. In the matter of Ravi vs. Badrinarayan and Others, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 693, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt claimant’s genuine case. It is not expected that a person would to rush to police station after accident, treatment of victim is given priority over lodging FIR. The relevant para 17 is reproduced herein below: “17. It is well-settled that delay in lodging FIR cannot be a ground to doubt the claimant's case. Knowing the Indian conditions as they are, we cannot expect a common man to first rush to the Police Station immediately after an accident. Human nature and family responsibilities occupy the mind of kith and kin to such an extent that they give more importance to get the victim treated rather than to rush to the Police Station. Under such circumstances, they are not expected to act mechanically with promptitude in lodging the FIR with the Police. Delay in lodging the FIR thus, cannot be the ground to deny justice to the victim.” 5 8. In the present case, the claimant sustained injuries on 20.9.2015 and was immediately hospitalized. He remained hospitalized from 20.9.2015 to 27.10.2015 whereas, FIR was lodged on 12.10.2015. Thus, the contention made by Shri Bennoon with regard to delay in lodging FIR cannot be accepted. 9. With regard to contention made by Shri Bennoon that tyre of the tractor fell on the abdomen of the child, the same cannot be accepted. No complaint was made by the driver or the owner of the vehicle regarding registration of FIR or the seizure of the Tractor. The claimant’s witnesses have categorically deposed in their evidence that the claimant was dashed by the driver of the tractor. 10. A perusal of the award would show that the learned Tribunal has honoured the medical bills incurred for the claimant’s treatment to the tune of Rs.4,75,000/-. According to the evidence of Dr. Suphal Kumar Gajbhiye (AW-2) there was rupture of pancreas and 700-800 blood clots were found in liver. Thus, it can be presumed that the condition of the claimant was serious. The claimant remained hospitalized for one month and therefore, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal for pain and suffering suffered by the claimant and his parents, appears to be on the lower side. The compensation for pain and suffering is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/-. 11. With respect to future medical expenses, the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- and according to evidence deposed by Dr. Suphal Kumar Gajbhiye (AW-2), the claims Tribunal should have awarded proper compensation for future medical treatment. The amount of Rs.30,000/- is enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. Learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for special diet, attendant and 6 conveyance. Under these heads, a sum of Rs.50,000/- is granted by this Court. 12. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal requires reconsideration and same is revisited herein below: Sr. No. Heads Compensation awarded by Tribunal Compensation awarded by this Court 1. Pain and Suffering, Rs.50,000/- Rs.1,00,000/- 2. Special diet, Conveyance and Attendant ---- Rs.50,000/- 2. Future Medical treatment Rs.30,000/- Rs.50,000/- 3. Medical Expenses Rs.4,75,000/- Rs.4,75,000/- TOTAL Rs. 5,55,000/- Rs. 6,75,000/- 13. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the amount of compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- awarded by the Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.6,75,000/-. Hence, after deducting the amount of Rs.5,55,000/-, the appellant/claimant is entitled for an additional amount of Rs.1,20,000/-. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount of compensation as enhanced by this Court within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. The additional amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim application before the Tribunal till its realization. Rest of the conditions of the impugned award shall remain intact. 7 14. In result, the appeal preferred by the Insurance Company is dismissed and the appeal preferred by the claimant is partly allowed and the impugned award is modified to the extent as indicated herein-above. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Nimmi