^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Q.''./•'' M.A. '&o.y—f^ of 2003, APB-fiLLANT Rajiv Lal Baghel S/o Shyamlal Baghel, aged about 22 years, resident of village Bhaisajhar, P.S. Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) VER S U S RESPOI1DENTS ::|iW! ^e'" »^"> ^'^^i^ .^•^"^t." sf<^ -.** <^'"'" &i)*° ! ^) uhula Kam S/o Shyam Manohar ^' Jaiswal, resj-dent of village Kalmitar, p.0. Ratanpur, Tah. &iDistt. Bilaspur (C.G.). 2) panch Ram Jaiswal S/o Mangal Ram Jaiswal, resident of vlllage Kalmltar, P.0. Ratanpur, Distt. Bi-laspur (C.G.). /' IK, (3) Kapj.1 Banjare , resident of vlllage Sewar, p.0. Chakar Bhata Tahsil & Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.). (4) Braach Manager United Ind.la Llmlted, Branch BilasD'ar (C.G.). ^PPE&L UIMDER SECTIOK 173~^)F THE MOTOR VEHICLE. ACT 1989 XI-HC-22 I, •EiTll'H'lto, (al<vtl<Hy _M..A.^.B..a3.sJa<sb3 31)^1 ^I an^i ^*4!<ti til?fl B:»!:W:ii 311^1 ^RIIW: ^rftd 17.12.2003 Ku. Sunita Jain, counsel fc^ the appeUant. Shri Shrikumar Agrawal ^il^tct'il-l IfftRff 4 IWt '^ aifigir sii^; knth Shri Anand Gupta for I'espondent no.4/the Insurance (pompany. Heard finally. The appellant filed a claii4 before fhe Motors Accident IClaims 'l'ribunal on the ground t^iat an accident had occurred |on 08.1.2002 while he was sittin! jworking as labour tn fhe tractor. pie driver. As a result of thls a^cident he sustained injuries ^nd his lcg was shortcncd. Hj p9.1.2002 to 18.1.2002. The Di|>ctors reported on 11.6.2002 jfchat there is 20% ofthe dlsabilit^. fhe claun petition u/s 140 J3fthe Motor Vehicles Act was file^ for no faiilt Uabilily that has |been rejected. Leamed counsel for the ap()Ucant submits that fhis is a ^ase where the appllcant has su^tained permanent Injmy, the (:ourt itself has found that the a|)plicant sustairied injured by tnotor accident as defmed undefe- the Act. He remained in ^iospital 09,1.20002 to 18 1Rhe Court itself has found that I^e sustained fracture of pubic ^ on a Tractor TroUey. He was The non-appHcant No. 1 was rcmaincd in hospital from 1.2002. He was examined. (Tft^SRrt XI-HC-22 'S'SS^WvR, fS-^WKc, gii^iqii •i^iFFsni?! sT^Ni' ^fia sn^r ^igiw 'aft^T „5 WlfSTTFl iniraf ^ TS'st TIW3R ^siPg-qsiI^; hone. The doctor's certificat4 shonrs that 20% of the disability was caused to the appeUant. Leamed counsel for ft^e appellant relled on a decision reported in 1998 Madhya Pr^idesh 247 (Babuliya alias Babulal -Vs- Mukesh Kumar). Par^graph 3 of fhc said judgment 1s relevant and quoted hereinb^low : "3. lt is pertinent tc| note that a poor person cannot afford to be ia Ijhe hospital for longer time, that does not by itself^eprive him of the benefit of benevolent provisions In nuinber of cases th| lateron and keeping in Of the Motor Vehlcles Act. b injuries naay be detected Snew tfae Ulileracy prevalent in India in villagcs, it n|iay not bc possiblc for such victim to produce the| medical certificate of the doulor wlio trealed lui4 uudaUy at llie slage wheu his appljcation for |iaterun relief is to be considered. The intenpon behind tegislating this provision of the Act i^ to give a solace to victim who systauied injurie^ in the accident. It is for enabling him to disbi^rsc the cxpcnscs incurred on niedlcal treatment. I What is to be seen is that there 'is nexus betwi^en the vehlcle Involved, accident occurred and victtm. If the tnjuries the injury sustained by the are serious and U' there is fracture, while considcjring thc prayer for iaterun relief made by such vi^ Sectlon 95 of fhe Act,| further details. Aft4raU the amount wUl be pm in view of pnsvisions of the Court need not go to [-(f^ tna'4 XI-HC-22 ^^'^TFncTO, dTliy'lti, T's('ai*i1< \ Lfi \\^ 331^iqff t?:ri?;3D^T sbtli* Tlf?t[ ll'l!)-li £..<-^ 31T^l"?R(IWHft^ -z Rs.12,500/- only; that a|noimt at the time of final decisi^n Leamed counsel for the decision reported in 2000(1)] Bajoriya V. Satish Kumar and Havlng considered the case and inaterial on record, th^ Accordlngly, It is aUowed. The amount under no faul} disburscd under Section 14Q furmshing security. In case, insuiance coinpany is not UaUle ^adjusted uu4er SccUuii 141j)fl^ ;| ®A^a_^W\ec^t^§-V^S;y.Y<W3fO ConseqiiRTitly LA.No. 107C stands disposed of. Certifled copy as per rules 'qiTqfeT'it^ TffiRTf'9 fSISt' ^; 3lfe[ 311^1 nmt may be adjnsted ofthe claim petition". jappellant fUrther relled on a Vidhi Bhasvar (Banwarilal c^thers). t'ajrts and circumstances of the appeal deserves to be allowed. liability shall be aUowed to be of Motor Vehicles Act on ^t is ultimately held that fhe then the amount shaU be lur Veludes AutSMb^wfi^w f^~~^tv^'"\^Ql\S^ Ei/2003 for urgent hea Sd/- Fakhruddin Judge ? [^ ^s^