1 2025:CGHC:14447 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 438 of 2020 1 - Thakur Ram Kumhar S/o Rama Kumhar Aged About 55 Years Caste Kumhar, R/o Village Saroli, Police Staton Khadgaon, Tahsil Manpur, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner Versus 1 - Ramkhilawan S/o Dhannu Aged About 35 Years Caste - Kanwar, R/o Village Chikhli, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Mini Bus No. Cg-04-E-2101)., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Satbir Singh Bhatia S/o Harjeet Singh Bhatia R/o Village Ambagarh Chowki, Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Mini Bus No. Cg-04-E-2101)., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of Offending Vehicle Mini Bus No. Cg-04-E-2101)., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Dashrath Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate along with Mr. Abhishek Mishra, Advocate S.B.: Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge Order On Board 26/03/2025 1. Notice sent to the Respondents No. 1 & 2 is reported to be served. However, there is no representation on their behalf. SHUBHAM DEY Digitally signed by SHUBHAM DEY 2 2. Heard on I.A. No. 02/2020 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing of the appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the pleading made in the application as also, the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant in I.A. No. 02/2020. 4. On due consideration of the submissions of counsel for the respective parties as also, the pleadings made in the application, I.A. No. 02/2020 is allowed. Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. 5. Appeal is admitted for hearing. 6. Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of Respondent No. 3/Insurance company. Hence, no process fee is required to be paid for this respondent. 7. As the liability to pay the amount of compensation is fastened upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, service of notice upon the Respondents No. 1 & 2 is dispensed with. 8. With the consent of parties, appeal is heard finally. 9. This appeal is filed by the appellant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal in its award dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Rajnandgaon, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Claim Case No. 143/2016. 10. Facts of the case in brief are that, on 11.05.2016 at about 07:00 A.M., the cattle of the appellant were grazing near village, at that time, one of the ox of the appellant was dashed by the Respondent No. 1 by his mini bus bearing Registration No. CG 04 E 2101. Due to the said accident, the ox sustained grievous injuries and during the course of treatment, the ox succumbed to his injuries on 02.06.2016. The 3 incident was reported to the concerned police station and a criminal case was registered against the Respondent No. 1. 11. Learned counsel for appellant submits that the learned Claims Tribunal though held that one of the ox purchased by the appellant on 11.05.2016, died due to the motor accidental injuries caused to him on 02.06.2016, however, the amount of compensation towards the cause of death of the ox has been assessed only as Rs. 27,500/- instead of Rs. 55,000/-. He further submits that the amount of compensation awarded on other heads is also on the lower side. Hence, the amount of compensation may be enhanced suitably. 12. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent No. 3 opposes the submission made by the counsel for the appellant and would submit that the cost of the ox i.e. Rs. 55,000/- is for the pair of ox and not for a single ox, as per the receipt produced by the appellant. The amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case which does not call for any interference. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and and perused the record of the appeal. 14. The motor accidental injuries suffered to one of the ox owned and purchased by the appellant is not in dispute. Death of the ox due to motor accidental injuries on 02.06.2016 is also not in dispute. Liability to satisfy the amount of compensation upon the Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company is also not disputed by the Respondent No. 3. The only ground raised by the counsel for the appellant is to the enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Claims Tribunal against the cost of the ox and on other heads. 4 15. In the aforementioned facts of the case, this Court considers it appropriate to dispose of this appeal at the admission stage. 16. During the course of argument learned counsel for the appellant had made submission that the bill/receipt produced with respect to the cost of the ox of Rs. 55,000/- (Ex. P/7) is related to the pair of ox and not of a single ox. Learned Claims Tribunal while considering the cost of one ox which died due to motor accidental injuries has considered its cost as Rs. 22,500/- i.e. half of the bills/receipts amount for which is the pair of ox. The said assessment of the compensation/cost of the ox cannot be said to be erroneous. 17. In the aforementioned facts of the case, I do not find any error in the said finding recorded by the learned Claims Tribunal that the appellant suffered the loss of Rs. 22,500/- towards the cost of one ox. 18. So far as the submission of the counsel for the appellant that the learned Claims Tribunal awarded meager sum on other heads is concerned, it is not in dispute that the accident occurred on 11.05.2016 and death of the ox is caused on 02.06.2016. That, one of the ox recently met with an accident and was under treatment for about 20 days and therefore, the mental pain and agony for that period cannot be overruled. 19. Learned Claims Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 2,000 under head of mental pain and agony which in the opinion of this court is on lower side. Hence, this Court finds it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation awarded under the head of mental pain and agony from Rs. 2,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-. It is ordered accordingly. 20. Looking to the date of accident as also, the date of death even though, the bills produced towards the treatment has not been submitted in the 5 evidence, however, providing treatment to the injured ox cannot be ignored. Hence, in the facts of the case, I find it appropriate to enhance the amount of compensation awarded towards the treatment from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000/- and further, the loss of income and transportation expenses from Rs. 5,000/- to Rs. 10,000. Now, the appellant claimant shall be entitled for a total sum of Rs. 57,500/- (27,500 + 10,000 + 10,000 +10,000). The amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of application till its realization. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the impugned award shall remain intact. 21. Any amount already paid to Claimants/Appellants as compensation shall be adjusted from the total amount of compensation as calculated above. 22. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the impugned award stands modified to the extent indicated above. Certified copy as per rules. Sd/- -------/--/- (Parth Prateem Sahu) Judge Dey