{ 1 E F O B E I H E H O N ' B L E I ‘ E G H C é U R T O F C H I - I A I T I S G A R H A T B I L A S P U R l 1 ? A P P E L L A N T X G N J P P L c m ; N M i s c . A P P E A L E ‘ N O . $ 3 5 2 . . O F 2 0 % a w w i I / ' B r a n c h M a n a g e r , U n i t e d I n d i a I n s u r a n c e C o m p a n y L i m i i e d , A m b i k a p u r , D i s t r i c t S a r g u j a ( C . G . ) I V E R S U S D l v m o n B a n c h § 1 ’ ( c . G . ) . S e w a i S i n h C h a u d h a r i S o n o f C h h a t t h R a m , R / o W a r d N o . 2 M a i n R o a d V i s h r a m p u r , P . S . V i s h r a m p u r , D i s t r i c t — S a r g u j a ( c . G . ) . N a m w i i i m o g a i l a . & 4 P P E A L U N D E R S E C T l o N 1 7 g o r M O T O R V E H E C L n s A C T m a g ‘ ( C l a i m i n a p p e a l v a l u e d a t E s . , - 3 , 6 l , 7 0 8 . 2 l P . o n l y ) I B e i n g a g g r i e v e d w i i h t h e a w a r d d a t e d 5 : 7 - 2 0 0 3 I f ' t e k h a r K h a n s o n o f M e n d . P h a r u k h K h a n , a g e d 1 7 y e a r s , W O M a s a n g a n j B i l a s p u r . P r e ’ s e n ’ c A d d r e s s — V i l l a g e K h a l a , P a l i c e S ' t a t i o n - D a r i m a T a h s i l A m b i k a p u r , D i s t r i c t S a r g u j a ( C - G o ) C L A I M A N T S u k h r a m S i n h s o n o f R a m k e w a l $ i n h , C a s t e — s K a n w a r , a g e d 2 5 y e a r s , R / o V i l l a g e D a r i m a , P o l i c e S t a t i o n — D a r i m a , ‘ T a h . A m b i k a p u r , D i s t r i c t S a r g u j a S u k h r a m ( u : S h i v p r a s a d S i n h , s o n o f H u d u l e a l , R a m , C a s t e - K a n w a r , a g e d 2 . 1 y e a r s , O c c u p a t i o n — D r i v e r , R / o V i l l a g e D a r i m a , P o l i c e S t a t i o n D a r i m a , T a h s i l A m b i k a p u r D i s t r i c t S a r g u j a ( C . G . ) \ . . 2 — o ' * 2 A y^... "^ &-^^":^ 1 ' •.' 8 %!»nJi ^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gunta, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. M.A. No. 690 of 2003 Iftekhar Khan Vs. Siikhram Singh SE Others And (ConnectedM.A. No. 852 of 2003) JUDGMEMT For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEy GUPTA <^^y1 Sd/- Chief Jiistice /03/2UTI * p Post for JudgmentL Z4(-/03/2flU Sd/- /; /03/2011 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM; Hon'ble Shri Ra.ieev Gupta. C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. Appellant M.A. No. 690 of 2003 Iftekhar Khan, S/o Mohammad Farukh Khan, aged about 17 years, R/o Masanganj, Bilaspiir, Present Address - Village - Khala, Thana- Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, Dista-ict Sarguja (C.G.) Respondents Appellant Resoondents Versus Siikhram Singh, S/o Ramkewal Singh, Caste- Kanwar, aged about 25 years, R/o ViUage 8s Thana- Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ! Siikhram @ Shivprasad Singh, S/o Hudulal Ram, Caste- Kanwar, aged about 21 years, Occupation- Driver, R/o Village- Daruna, Thana- Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, Disfarict Sarguj-a (C.G.) ! Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd., Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) [ Sewai Singh Choudhari, S/o Chhatthu Ram, R/o Ward No.-2, Main Road Vishrampur, Thana- Vishrampur, District Sarguja (C.G.) And M.A. No. 852 of 2003 Branch Manager, United India Insurance Coinpany Lunited, Ainbikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 7ersus Iftekhar Khan son of Mohd. Farukh Khan, aged 17 years, R/o Masanganj Bilaspur, Present Address- Village Khala, Police Station- Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) ^ M.A. No. 690 of2003&M.A.No. 852 of2003 w. ^^_^iS^f" 2 Sukhram Singh son of Ramkewal Singh, Caste- Kanwar, aged 25 years, R/o VUlage Darima, Police Station- Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 3 Sukhram @ Shivprasad Singh, son of Hudulal Ram, Caste- Kanwar, aged 21 years, Occupation- Driver, R/o Village Darima, Police Station Darima, Tahsil Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) 4 Sewai Singh Chaudhari son of Chhatthu Ram, R/o Ward No. 2 Main Road Vishrampur, P.S. Vishrampur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) (Appeals under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act) Appearance: Mr. Awadh Tripathi and Vikas Pradhan, Advocates for the claimant. Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate for the Insurance Company. Ms. F>ushpa Dwivedi, Advocate for the owner and driver. JUDGMENT (44-.03.2011) FoUowing judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. (1) These appeals are directed against the award dated 5.7.2003 passed in Claim Case No. 7/2003 by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surguja, Ambikapur. (2) M.A. No. 852/2003 has been filed by the insurer for fheir exoneration and M.A. No. 690/2003 has been filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation. ^f ••:•'> '''•-.^' M.A. No. 690 of2003 & M.A. No. 852 of2003 (3) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Claimant- Iftekhar Khan was aged about 17 years. He was studying in 11th standard. On 16.2.2002, he met with an accident. He filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.13 Lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. He pleaded that the accident occurred on accormt of rash and negUgent driving of the offending Jeep bearing registration No. MP 26 - E/4423 by its driver. He pleaded that the Jeep dashed against him and the tyres of the Jeep ran over his legs, due to which, he was treated in Govemment Hospital, Ambikapur, Sector-9 Hospital, Bhilai and thereafter in Nagpur Hospital. Ultimately his right leg wasamputed and a rod was inserted in his left leg. The owner and driver denied the allegations of negligence and they also denied the details of amount incurred in treatment of the injured as also his entitlement to receive compensation. Insurer took the plea that the vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions as it was insured as a private vehicle, whereas, it was being used as a taxi, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimant for the injuries and permanent disability sustained by him. (4) The claimant examined Mohd. Aftekhar Khan (AW-1 - claimant himself), Mohd. Farukh Khan (AW-2) and Thakur Ram (AW-3) in support of his Claim Petition, whereas, the owner and driver examined Sukhram Singh (NAW-1) and Sewai Singh (NAW- 2) in rebuttal. The Insurance Company also examined A.B. Ekka (NAW-1 on behalf of insurer) and Anup Mehta (NAW-2 on behalf of insurer) in rebuttal and also in support of their contentions. \, M.A. No. 690 of2003 & M.A. No. 852 of 2003 u^ (5) The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of evidence led before it, held thot accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver; the claunant suffered flmputation of his right leg and he also suffered fracture on his left leg; and the vehicle was not being plied in breach of policy conditions and liability was that of the Insurance Company. The Tribunal awarded Rs.76,708.21 p. for medical expenses; Rs.l lakh for permanent disability; Rs.50,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.50,000/- for future treatanent; Rs.10,000/- for special diet; and Rs.25,000/- for loss in future prospects. The Tribunal thus awarded a sum of Rs.3,11,708.21p. as compensation to the appellant for the above injuries sustained by hira in the motor accident. Over and above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- for artiBcial limb. The Tribunal thus awarded a total sum of Rs.3,61,708.21 p. to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16.2.2002. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Claira Petition till the date of actual payment. (6) Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company, argued that the vehicle was being plied in breach of policy conditions as it was being used as a taxi, whereas, it was insured as a private vehicle. We have considered the oral evidence as also the policy of the offending vehicle. According to the insurance poUcy (Ex.-D/2), the said vehicle was M.A. No. 690 of2003&M.A.No. 852 of2003 insured as a private vehicle. It comes in the evidence of the claimant's witnesses that the vehicle was taken on family terms from its owner and it was not taken as a taxi. It also comes in the evidence that the members of the family of the owner and the members of the family of the claimant were in friendly term, therefore, the vehicle was taken and it was not a case in which any rent etc. was paid for taking the vehicle. The Tribunal after exam.ining the entire evidence available on record has recorded the flnding that it was not established that the vehicle was taken on rent and it was being plied in breach of policy conditions. After considering the entire evidence available on record, we do not End any infirmity in the finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, the arguments advanced by leamed counsel of the Insurance Company cannot be accepted. (7) Mr. Awadh Tripathi and Mr. Vikas Pradhan, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the claimant, argued that the compensation was not properly assessed. They also argued that a low amount of compensation has been awarded. (8) Mr. H.B. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel, has opposed these arguments. (9) Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the owner and driver, has also opposed the arguments of Mr. Awadh Tripathi and Mr. Vikas Pradhan. M.A. No. 690 of2003 & M.A. No. 852 of2003 (10) The law in relation to awarding conipensation in accident cases is weU setUed. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunals are under obligation to award "just and reasonable" coinpensation to the genuine claimants after determining the factuin of accident as also the factum of rash and negUgent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be windfall for the victim. The statutoiy provisions clearly communicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression "just" denotes eqiutability, faimess, reasonableness and non- arbitrariness. Please see State of Haryana and another -Vs- Jdsbir Kaur and others (20031 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. Rebello {Mrs.l and others -vs- SSaharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another. (1999) 1 SCC 90. (11) We have carefuUy examined the amount^.) awarded to the claimant under different heads. We find that the amount(s) of all the bills incurred in treatment, reference of which is in Para-38 of the award, has been allowed by the Tribunal and fhe Tribunal has o ^^l.,M«t)S —n*>i"**a *;"' •^' ..^:i s./' ^ ^.^s.-Kg,: f?l'2%> V;x^^l •«,,-• MA, No. 690_of2003 & M.A. No. 852 of2003 ^ not refused the amount of any bUl. Therefore, the claimant can not have any legitimate grievance on this account. This amount comes to Rs.76,708.21 p. SufRcient amount , under all permissible heads i.e. for permanent disability; pain and sufferings; future treatment; special diet and future prospects, has been awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has also awarded amount of artificial limb. When the aforesaid amount is examined in light of the above broad featiiresof the case, we are unable to hold that the compensation awarded to the appellant was a low compensation which reqiiires interference by this Court. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation already awarded to the appellant. We are of the view fhat the compensation awarded to fhe appellant wasjust and proper compensation which was also with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of Eling of the Claim Petition till realization. (12) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any substance in these appeals. The appeals, therefore, are liable to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed. (13) No order as to cost(s). S(i/- ChiefJustfce Sd/- Suail Kumar Sinha Judge vatti