High CourtsSingle Bench

Rajesh Kumar vs Santosh Kumar And Ors

Chhattisgarh High Court · Decided on 4 January 2018 · Citation: (2018) 01 CHH CK 0040

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. 652 Of 2014
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

19 paragraphs · 358 words

P. Sam Koshy, J

1.

The present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been filed by the claimant assailing the award dated 30.11.2013 passed by the

Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mungeli (in short, the Tribunal) in Claim Case No. 29/2012. Vide the said impugned award, the Tribunal

has awarded a compensation of Rs.1,08,000/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has not properly appreciated the medical expenses which have been incurred and that

he had produced bills for Rs.1,05,100/- whereas the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.68,300/- towards medical expenses. He further submits that for the

disability also the Tribunal has not properly awarded the compensation and thus prayed for award to be suitably enhanced.

3.

The counsel for the insurance however opposing the appeal submits that it is a case where the medical bills have been properly scrutinized and

prove and only thereafter which were found to be genuine pertaining to claimant's treatment were allowed by the Tribunal and as such there is no

scope of interference. So far as other compensation is concerned, that was awarded on the basis of evidence which have come on record and thus

prayed for rejection of the appeal.

4.

Having considered the rival contentions put forth on either side and on perusal of record, considering the evidence which have come on record it

reflects that there was a fracture on the thigh bone of left leg of the claimant and for which he was hospitalized for a considerable period of time and

had also undergone considerable treatment for cure.

5.

Given the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the opinion that ends of justice would meet if the claimant is awarded an additional

amount Rs.25,000/- in addition to what has already been awarded making total compensation at Rs.1,33,000/- instead of Rs.1,08,000/- as awarded by

the Tribunal. It is ordered accordingly.

6.

The enhanced amount of compensation shall also carry same interest as has been awarded by the Tribunal.

7.

The appeal stands allowed and disposed of.