LAWS(CHH)-2019-6-106

HEMIN BAI DHRITLAHARE Vs. TEKRAM SAHU

Decided On June 19, 2019
Hemin Bai Dhritlahare Appellant
V/S
Tekram Sahu Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 challenging the impugned award dated 19.12.2014 passed by the 2 nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur (CG) in Claim case No.20/2013, wherein the learned Claims tribunal allowed the claim application in part and awarded a total sum of Rs.54,100/- as compensation in an injury case.

(2.) Brief facts for disposal of this appeal are that on 12.9.2012 at about 12.00 pm when the appellant/claimant was returning from Sai Hospital, Raipur along with other family members on a Auto Rikshaw to their village, at that relevant time, when they reached near village Semariya, one Maruti Suzuki Zen No. CG 04 HC/0573 driven by non-applicant 1, dashed the Auto Rikshaw on which the appellant was travelling. In the aforementioned accident, she suffered injuries on different parts of her body including fracture over her right leg. She was immediately taken to Balaji Hospital at Raipur where she took treatment as inpatient from 12.9.2012 to 21.9.2012. The matter was reported to the concerned police station based on which crime bearing No.178/2012 was registered against non-applicant 1 for the offences defined under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C.

(3.) The appellant/claimant on account of suffering injuries and expending amount towards medical expenses has filed claim application before the competent claims tribunal claiming Rs.3,50,000/- as compensation on the grounds mentioned therein. The non-applicants 1 and 2 have denied all the adverse pleadings made in claim application and further pleaded that the driver of the Auto Rikshaw was driving his vehicle under the influence of liquor and the accident took place due to rash and negligent act of the Auto Rikshaw. It has also been pleaded that the award of compensation is on the higher side and on the date of accident the offending vehicle was insured with non-applicant 3 and therefore, liability if any, would be on the insurance company, non-applicant 3.