The Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of social welfare legislation and so the provisions justly determine the compensation: High Court Of Chhattisgarh

1NAFRHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Reserved on 18.10.2021Pronounced on 01.11.2021M.A(C) No.1217Lal Singh S o Late Shivprasad Singh Aged About 51 Years R o TeachersColony Domanhill Police Station Chirmiri Tahsil Khadgawa District Korea Chhattisgarh ..............Claimant AppellantVersus 1.Shivnarayan S o Ramadhar R o Sadak Dafai Haldibadi Police StationChirmiri Tahsil Khadgawa District Korea Chhattisgarh ...............Driver OfMotorcycle No. C.G.16 D 35342.Pawan Sai S o Sainath Aged About 40 Years R o Haldibadi Chirmiri PoliceStation Chirmiri Tahsil Khadgawa District Korea Chhattisgarh...............Owner Of Motorcycle No. C.G.16 D 3534 District : Koriya(Baikunthpur) RespondentsFor Appellant:Shri Anil Gulati and Shri PK Tulsiyan Advocates.For Respondent No.1:Smt Ranjana Jaiswal Advocate. For Respondent No.2:None though served.Single Bench: Hon ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari JC A V Judgment 1.This Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Claimants underSection 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988in Claim Case No.47 2013 whereby thelearned Claims Tribunal while allowing the claim in part has awarded a lumpsum amount of Rs.10 000 with 8% interest per annum from the date of filingof the Claim Petition till its realization. The parties to this Appeal shall bereferred hereinafter as per their description in the trial Court. 2.The facts of the case in nut shell are that on 20.12.2012 theAppellant Claimant went to the restaurant at Haldibari Chirmiri and when he 2reached near the said restaurant Respondent No. 1 who was driving hismotorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 16 D 3534 in a rash and negligentmanner dashed the Appellant on account of which he received multipleinjuries and was immediately shifted to Regional Hospital wherefrom onreferral he was admitted at Apollo Hospital Bilaspur from 21.12.2012 to28.12.2012. The Claimant Appellant is working as a School Teacher in thelaboratory of Central School Chirmiri and due to the said incident he couldnot perform his duties from 21.12.2012 to 13.01.2012 and from 15.01.13 to24.01.2013 for which he has claimed an amount of compensation to the tuneof Rs. 1 82 930 under different heads.3.Respondents No.1 & 2 have contested the claim and the Tribunal afterconsidering the evidence led by the parties arrived at a conclusion that thealleged accident occurred on 20.12.2012 due to rash and negligent driving bythe driver of its offending vehicle and the Claimant has sustained injuries andby fastening the liability upon the Respondent jointly and severally awardedlump sum compensation as mentioned above.4.Being aggrieved the Claimant has preferred this Appeal. LearnedCounsel appearing for the Appellant Claimant submits that the ClaimsTribunal while passing the award impugned has erred in awarding a lumpsum amount of Rs.10 000 and failed to appreciate the evidence on record inorder to provide just and proper compensation to the Claimant. 5.On the other hand Counsel for Respondent No.1 supported the awardand submits that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any illegality inawarding compensation as such.6.I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record .7.It appears from the evidence available on record that on account of the 3alleged accident occurred on 20.12.2012 Claimant Lal Singhworkingas a Lab Teacher in Central School Chirmiri has sustained injuries on hishead back and ribs. So he was firstly taken to Regional Hospital Chirmiriwherefrom he was referred to Higher Centre. Dr. RajkumarNueroSurgeon stated that the Claimant was hospitalized in Apollo Hospital from21.12.2012 to 28.12.2012. The Claimant has also produced medical billsmarked as Ex. A1 to A 6 of said hospital for the treatment and follow up on13.02.13 amounting to Rs. 24 199 . The Claimant has also incurred expensesfor transportation for which he also exhibited three bills i.e. A7 A 9 amountingto Rs. 11 000 approximately.8.The learned Tribunal has completely ignored the aforesaid documentaryevidence and awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.10 000 so thecomputation made by the Tribunal is not just and proper.9. The Motor Vehicles Act is in the nature of social welfare legislation andits provisions make it clear that the compensation should be justly determined.In the matter of Helen C. Rebelloand others vs. Maharashtra StateRoad Transport Corporation and another reported in1 SCC 90 inparagraph 28 it has been held on the contours of ‘just’ compensation asunder: “28............The word “just” as its nomenclature denotes equitability fairness and reasonablenesshaving a large peripheral field. The largeness is ofcourse not arbitrary it is restricted by theconscience which is fair reasonable and equitable if it exceeds it is termed as unfair unreasonable unequitable not just..........” 10.Considering the fact that the injured Claimant was hospitalized for 8days and also on leave from 21.12.2012 to 13.01.2013 so additionalcompensation in different heads is found merited and indicated as under : 4 S No. Head Amount Awarded1.Pain & Suffering Rs. 10 000 2.Medical ExpensesRs. 30 000 3.Transportation ExpensesRs. 11 000 4.Expenses for AttendentRs. 5 000 5.Special DietRs. 5 000 6.TotalRs. 61 000 The enhanced amount of Rs. 51 000 shall carry interest at the rate of6% per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition i.e. 29.08.2013 till itsrealization. 11.The Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Rest of the observations as made by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.No order as to costs. Sd JudgePriya 

Summary: The learned Tribunal had completely ignored the documentary evidence and awarded a lump sum amount. Such an opinion was held by The Hon’ble High Court Of Chhattisgarh before The Hon’ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari in the matter of Lal Singh Vs. Shivnarayan and Ors [M.A(C) No.124 of 2017 ].  The facts of the case were associated with a miscellaneous appeal by the claimants under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 where the award passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was questioned about its legality and propriety. It was reported that respondent 1 was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner dashed on the appellant resulting in several injuries to the appellant. The claimant/appellant was a school teacher and due to the accident, he could not work for a long time and due to which he claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,82,930/- under different heads.  It was reported that the Tribunal by fastening the liability upon the Respondent jointly and severally, awarded lump sum compensation as stated. The claimant being aggrieved by the decision, preferred the appeal. The Counsel representing the appellant contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/- and failed to appreciate the evidence on record in order to provide just and proper compensation to the Claimant. Whereas, the counsel for respondent 1 stated that there was no illegality by the Tribunal in awarding the compensation. Medical bills, Travelling expenses etc were submitted by the Appellant in different Exhibits but the learned Tribunal had completely ignored such documentary evidence.  After examining all documents and submissions, The Hon’ble Court stated that “… Considering the fact that the injured Claimant was hospitalized for 8 days and also on leave from 21.12.2012 to 13.01.2013, so additional compensation in different heads is found merited … The enhanced amount of Rs. 51,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of filing of Claim Petition i.e. 29.08.2013 till its realization. The Appeal is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. Rest of the observations as made by the Claims Tribunal shall remain intact.”