High CourtsSingle Bench

Anita Kashyap vs Anil Kashyap And Ors

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 28 February 2018 · Citation: (2018) 02 CHH CK 0435

HON’BLE JUDGES
P. Sam Koshy, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 — Section 173
RESULT
Allowed/Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Miscellaneous Appeal (C) No. 939 Of 2012
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 504 words

P. Sam Koshy, J

1.

Present is an appeal filed by the claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act assailing the award dated 16/03/2012 passed by the learned

Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 73/2010.

2.

Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal in an injury case has awarded a compensation of Rs.73,734/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date

of application.

3.

The counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on the lower side and the same deserves suitable

enhancement. He further submits that, the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the evidence of the nature of injury sustained by the claimant and has

only awarded a lump sum compensation of Rs.50,000/-. He further submits that, they had examined doctor V.K.Jha- AW/3 before the Court below

who had assessed the disability at 50%, but the Tribunal has not considered this aspect. He further submits that, the Tribunal also has not granted any

compensation for the pain and suffering and mental agony which she had undergone and thus prayed for suitable enhancement of the award.

4.

A plain reading of the facts as is stipulated in the statement of the doctor as also from the claimant what clearly reflect is that, it is a case where the

claimant received injuries on both her hands and that her right hand got fully damaged in as much as the claimant was not able to lift her hand above

the shoulders and that she was also facing difficulties to drink water with her right hand.

5.

Considering the nature of evidence which has been led by the claimant which stands corroborated from the evidence of doctor, this Court has no

hesitation in assessing the overall disability of the claimant at 25% keeping in view the judgment of Honb'le Supreme Court in the case of Raj Kumar

Vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. [2011 1 SCC 343].

6.

Accepting the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month, the yearly income would become Rs.36,000/-. The claimant would also be

entitled for 40% of his income towards future prospects which would bring the amount to Rs.50,400/-. If we assess 25% as the loss of earning

capacity, the amount would come to Rs.12,600/- which if multiplied by applying multiplier of 18, the amount would come to Rs.2,26,800/-. It is ordered

accordingly that the claimant shall be entitled for a compensation of Rs.2,26,800/- towards loss of earning capacity. In addition, the claimants would

also be entitled for the medical expenses so also the compensation under special diet as has been awarded by the Tribunal i.e. at Rs.5,734/- &

Rs.18,000/- respectively. In addition, this Court also quantifies the compensation towards the pain and suffering and mental agony at Rs.25,000/-. Thus

the total compensation payable would become Rs.2,75,534/- instead of Rs.73,734/-. The said enhanced amount shall also carry interest at the same

rate as has been awarded by the Tribunal.

7.

The appeal stands allowed and disposed off.