Chhattisgarh High Court
MA/275/2003 of RAJIV LAL BAGHEL Vs JHULA RAM AND OTHERS on 17 December 2003
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^
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
::|iW!
^^
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
I, •EiTll'H'lto, (al<vtl<Hy
_M..A.^.B..a3.sJa<sb3
gii^iqii•i^iFFsni?!sT^Ni' ^fia
'S'SS^WvR, fS-^WKc,
WlfSTTFl iniraf ^ TS'st TIW3R^siPg-qsiI^; sn^r ^igiw 'aft^T „5
hone. The doctor's certificat4 shonrs that 20% of the disabilitywas caused to the appeUant.Leamed counsel for ft^e appellant relled on a decisionreported in 1998 Madhya Pr^idesh 247 (Babuliya alias Babulal-Vs- Mukesh Kumar).Par^graph 3 of fhc said judgment 1srelevant and quoted hereinb^low :
"3.lt is pertinent tc| note that a poor personcannot afford to be ia Ijhe hospital for longer time,that does not by itself^eprive him of the benefit ofbenevolent provisionsOf the Motor Vehlcles Act.In nuinber of cases th|b injuries naay be detectedlateron and keeping inSnew tfae Ulileracy prevalentin India in villagcs, it n|iay not bc possiblc for suchvictim to the| medical certificate of the producedoulor wlio trealed lui4 uudaUy at llie slage wheuhisappljcationfor |iaterunrelief istobeconsidered. The intenpon behind tegislating thisprovision of the Act i^ to give a solace to victimwho systauied injurie^ in the accident.It is for him to disbi^rsc the incurredenabling cxpcnscson niedlcal treatment. I What is to be seen is thatthere 'is nexus betwi^en the vehlcle Involved,accident occurred andthe injury sustained by thevicttm.If the tnjuriesare serious and U' there isfracture, while considcjring thc for iaterun prayerrelief made by such vi^pm in view of pnsvisions ofSectlon 95 of fhe Act,|the Court need not go tofurther details.Aft4raU the amount wUl be [-(f^ tna'4
\ Lfi\\^