Charan Jit Singh v. Vikki Singh

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 258 of 2014 Charan Jit Singh S/o Late Sant Singh Gulati Aged About 47 Years Income Tax Commissioner, Mumbai, R/o Vasan Gali, Near Police Station Kotwali, Korba, Distt. Korba C.G. ---- Appellant Versus 1. Vikki Singh S/o Madan Singh Aged About 40 Years R/o Qr.No. 175/1,Bhanpuri, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. Owner of Vehicle No. CG04J-4977.Bhanpuri, Raipur, Distt. Raipur C.G. Owner of Vehicle No. CG04J-4977. 2. Tarsen Jit Singh @ Satte Singh Dhillo S/o Avtar Singh Sindhi R/o NearGurudwara, Korba, Distt. Korba C.G. Driver of Vehicle No. CG04J-4977.Gurudwara, Korba, Distt. Korba C.G. Driver of Vehicle No. CG04J-4977. 3. Shriram General Insurance Company Limited E-8, E.P.I.P. RikoIndustries, Sitapur, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Insurer of Vehicle No. CG04J-4977.Industries, Sitapur, Jaipur (Rajasthan). Insurer of Vehicle No. CG04J-4977. ---- Respondents For the Appellant : Shri Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate.For Respondent No.3 : Shri S.S. Rajput, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh SamantJUDGEMENT 16.08.2017 1.This appeal has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of thecompensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Janjgir-Champa in Claim Case No. 30 of 2013. 2.The appellant met with an accident on 25.4.2010 with a vehiclebearing registration No. C.G.04 J-4977 driven by respondent No.2 – TarsenJit Singh @ Satte Singh Dhillo rashly and negligently, resulted in causinginjuries to the appellant. On the basis of the injuries suffered and theexpenses incurred on the treatment, the claim case has been filed againstthe respondents who are owner, driver and the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. Learned Claims Tribunal after affording opportunityto the respondents/ non-applicants for presenting their case, decided theclaim case by award dated 10.12.2013 and has awarded a compensation ofRs.50,000/- in favour of the appellant. 3.The appellant has prayed in the appeal that the assessment ofdamages for award of compensation has not been properly done by learnedTribunal below hence, it is prayed that the amount of compensation awardedby the learned Claims Tribunal may be enhanced. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned ClaimsTribunal has not taken into account all the expenses that were proved in thestatement of the appellant and as such, the compensation assessed is notjust and adequate compensation. 5.Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the award ofcompensation is just and adequate and there is no need for interference orenhancement of the award. 6.In the impugned award, Learned Claims Tribunal has not consideredthe evidence and the documents exhibited in evidence Ex.NA17, whichclearly mentions that a total of Rs.69,285.53 was spent in the treatment ofthe appellant in Apollo Hospitals, Bilaspur. This exhibited document has notbeen challenged in any manner by the respondents, hence, it stands proved.On the basis of the same, the appellant is entitled to receive this amount ascompensation under the head of expenses for treatment. Taking intoaccount the expenses for pain and suffering, a total amount of Rs.80,000/-would be just and adequate compensation for the appellant. Accordingly, this Nimmi appeal is allowed and the compensation awarded to the appellant by theLearned Claims Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.80,000/- which shall be payableby the respondent jointly and severally. The amount, if any, paid byrespondent No.3 shall be adjusted in payment of the enhancedcompensation. If the enhanced amount of compensation is not paid within aperiod of 45 days, then interest @ 9% per annum shall also be leviableagainst respondent No.3. 7.Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed off. Sd/- (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)Judge