s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTtSOARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, MXfClNo.l 544 of2009 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS State of Chhattisgarh and another Versus Kameshwar Puri Goswmi and another ORDER For Pronouncement of Order 23.06.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge y> .uo^un :^, HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE 8HRI R.LJHANWAR. J. Misc. Appeal (01 hto. 1544 of 2009 ^.z- APPELLANTS NON-APPUCANTS N0.2 & 3 RESPONDENTS CLAIMANTS 1. State of Chhjattisgarh, Threugh: Th& Secretary, Govemment of Chhatttsgarh, Department of Water Reaources, D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantralaya, Raipur (C.G.) 2. The Sub Di^tonal OfRcer, Department of Water Resources, Regionsrf Store, Distrfct Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. (^imeshwar Puri Geswami, S/o Tlianwar Puri Goswami, Aged about 40 years, R/o VHIage Patharra, Thana & Tahsil - Rajim, District ~ Raipur (C.G.) /^PUCANT 2. Cherkaram Sahu, Aged about 59 years, S/o Kartikram Sahu, R/o trrigation OfRce, Gariyaband, Thana & Tahsfl ~ Gariyaband, Distrtot-Ralpur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHtCLES ACT Appearance: Shri Arvind Dubey. P.L. for the State. Shri Tariq Hyder for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. ORDgB (Passedon r><2. .06.2 B^ng aggrieved bythe order dated 5th May. 2009 passed in Claim Case No. 93/2008 by the Addittenal htotor Accidents Olahns Tribunal, Garlyaband awarcling a sum of Rs.84,10(y- as compensation in fsavoin' of respondent No.l/cteimant, the State has preferr^l this appwl. 2. Brief fsacts of the case are that on 16.6.2008 the cteimant/respondent No.1 was going on Ws motor cycte from Rajim to Bakli for reporting the tour programme of Minister. As soon as the T'^:A,^ ^ claimant reached the village Bakti, at the same time, rwpondertf No.l/drh/er, who was drMng the offending Mahendra vehicle teearing No.C.G.02 1681, suddenly opened its door of the offending vehtete whfch was in running condttion, as a result of such sudden opening of the door, the ctajmant, who was coming on his motoreycte, dashed th®door and fell down and received serious injuries on hfe right teg. 7h®claimant was shifted to the Rajim Hospitat by the pereons who wer®present there and thereafter he was referred to Medteal College Hospital, Raipur. 3. On account of injuries sustained by him, th®ctaimanyr^ipondent No.1 preferred a claim petttton claiming compensatton @f Rs.6,24,OQO/-. The present appellanfs ateo flled their witten statement denying the accidentand specifteally pleaded that the claimant himself was negligent and due to hfe negligence he fetl down in a ditch and sustained hijuriws, and therefore, they are not responsibte for payment of compensaNon to him. 4. The Tribunal, on ctose scrutiny of the evtdenee, materiat placed and respective submisstons of the parttes, hetel the driver/respondent N@.2 liabte for causing sustained injuries by drMng the offending vehtete ai a rash and negligent manner and awarded the eompensatton. The break up ofwhteh is as under: 1. Loss of income for one month : Ks. SQQOf- Forbetterdiet : Rs. 1000/- 2. 3. 4. 5. For charges incurred on attendant during treatment : E)q3enses incurred during treatment: Conveyance charges incurrod duringthecourseoftreatment : 6. For pain and suffwing Total Rs. 200CV- Rs.70600!/- Rs. SOOf- Rs. SOOOf' Rs.84100/- 5. - Leamed counsel for the s^pellants argued that the incident took place due to negligence drhnng of motor cycle bythe elaimant and not by driving of offendmg vehicle. The clajmant/respondent No.1 was sotely responsibte for causing accident. He further argued that the leamed "^•^ ^M Claims Tribunal has not consklered the evidence ofdriver ofthe offondtng vehtete and only relying upon the evklence of the Glaimant/rwpondent No.1, the tearned Claims Tribunal has passed the awrewd. He urged that the award ofthe Tribunal be set asRle. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing claimant/respondent hto.1 argued in support ofthe impuyied award. fer 7. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parttes and have perused the impugned award induding record. 8. In a motor accident cteim case. what fe important te that ttie compensation to be awarded bythe Courts/Tnbunateshould be just and proper compensatfon in the facts and drcumstanc^ ofthecase. It shoutel neither be a meageramount of compensation nor a bwianza. 1 shall new examine as to whether thecompensation of Rs.8410(y- awarded bythe Tribunal is just and fair compensatton in the facts and ctrcumstances of the present case. ^. It js clear from the evklence of claimant/Fespondent No.1 and documents annexed with the record that the incident took plaee on 16.6.2008 when the claimant was going on his metor cycte to cover the tour programme of the Minister and at the same time respondent No.2 was driving the offending vehtete in a rashand negl^ent mannerand in such negligence he opened the doorofthe offending whteto suddenlyand the claimant, who was coming on his motor cycte, dashed the door and fell dovwi, as a resutt of whteh, he sustained injuries. Thus, it has oome that the driver of offending vehtete was negligent. He shouM have seen the persons before openjng the door of the vehtete. 1 am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly hetel the drivar of offending vehfcte liabte for cause of accident and negligent. It fe ateo ctear thsrt no doctor was examined and despite that the Tribunal after rel^ng upon the evklence and medteal documents and expenses incurred by theelaimant on his treatment has awarded Rs.84,10(V- as compensatton, as mentloned in paragraph 4 of this Order. Lwrned counsel ter the appellants/State has ateo not been abte to point out any iltegaljty and infinnity in the impugned award. ^^y'^ y^-.^ ' -^NI 1 / ^'« \Q. The compensation of Rs.84,100^- awarded by th®Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in my opinion, is certainlyjust and fair compensation inthe facte and circumstances ofthe case. ^. Consequentty, the appeal fited by the State, being davoid of merlt and substance, is Itebte to be and is hereby dfeniissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge