HIGH CUT OF CHHAyrTISGARH A: BILASPUR DMSIcbN BENCH § \ .[ CORAM HON’BLE SHR! RAJEEV GUPTA CJ HON’ELE SHRI SUNHL KUMAR 8INHA J Misc Asmeai NO 875 of 2&63 gapeigant ’ Claimant w.“A I f. gu J i Smt Padma Motwanl aged about45 yeam Wife of Shn Apt R Mofwam R/o Qtr No ’UB Road No 43 Sectw—‘I’, BhiIaL Nagar! Tahsil 8: Distt. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents ‘1. Hosyar Singh, s/o Jora Ram Jat R/o Kekdetha Thana MaISisarr dvstt Jhumhuna (Ra;asthan) (BRIVER) ,Mahavn' Travelis throuah Ramlal Bagara S/o Shn Gumani Ram R/0 C69 Nayakhera Ambabam Jaipur (Rajasthan) ‘ - (GWNER) United India insurance Co. Limited, thmugh Branch Manager, Krishna ‘Compiex, First Hoor, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) (INSURANGE C0.) Misc: Apgea! under Section 173 of Motor Vehiclea Act P’esent : Snn V:shnu Koshta counse! forthe appellant ‘ Shn Shanendra Sharma counsel for respondent No 3 cRnER I (11“: November, 2010) .The foligwing order, of the Court was passed b Riajeev Gupta, 6,4. I é 1 GR hi y i Appeliant —- smt. Padma Motwani is seeking enhancement of 1 i he cempensation awarded by jthe First Additional Motor 'Aocident ““CT iaims Tribunal, Durg (for shoit ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 7‘032003, passed in Claim Case No.25/2003. ) As against the compensation of Rs.5,82,450/- claimed by ,he appellant/claimant by filing aj claim petition under Section 166 of he Motor Vehicles Act for the in‘iuries sustained byKher in the motor W1— u . ccident on 01.04.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of l i Re.’13,173;’n as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum. . f3) ' The Tribunal on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Smtr Padma Motwani sustained‘multiple injuries in the motor accident on 01 .D4.20Di; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending l iveh‘icle Bus bearing registration‘No. R.J.14P/9617; as the above ‘ ioffending vehicle Bus on the date of the accident was insured with he United india insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) ‘The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the iinjuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor iaccident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.5,000i— towards grievous injury sustained by the ciaimant; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.2,i73!— towards medical expenses; and \Rs.1,000i— for speciai diet. The Tribunal, l thus, awarded a totai sum of Rs.13,i73/- as compensation to the i i ,\ k ‘ ‘ ‘ .,__ < ~ I I \ ciaimant The Tribunal further d rested payment of Interest on the bove amcunt of compensation of Rs 13 173l- @ 9% per annum 5!) Shn Vishnu Koshta; Earned counsel for the appellant Viehementty argued that the Tribune! has erred in awarding iow .compensation of Rs.13,173/— only though the appellant/ claimant Ststained multiple serious injuries including fractures of her ribs in the motor accident. t 9hri Shailendra Sharma learned counsel for reeoondent l \lo3 the United lndia insurance Company Limited on the other . hand supported the award and contended that as the claimant ‘ oouici not establish that tne iniuries suSIained by her in the motor apoident resuited in any permanent disability, the compensation of Rs.13,173/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper i c mpensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case, 7 The unfortunate accident wherein ciaimant‘Smt. Padma Motwani sustained injuries took place in the State of Rajasthan. l i her meoicai examination on the date of the acCident itself i e' i t $2001 only two external injuries were found on the claimant wide MLC. Ex.Pl2. These two external injuries were (i) abrasion ch the left forearm and (ii) one bruise on the right side of her back. l T, us, 'it is apparent that no external injury was found on her chest region. Her X-ray examination on the date of the accident i.e. Oji-Oe—2001 did not reveal any bony injury as is mentioned in the x—Eray report EXP/3. How‘then, at a later stage at Durg‘ fractures of l hler teft 6‘“, Y‘he 8‘“ ribs were found is snronded in mystery l i k glE ' No x—ray report was producedébefore the Tribunal far estabiishing these aileged fs'actures. ‘8) In this state of evidence, we are satisfied that th compensation of Rs.13,1?3l— awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances or” the present ease and does not can for any enhancement in this appeal. i9) i i i . 1 A The appeal fiied by theappeliant/claimant for enhanment :of the compensation, therefore,‘ is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. i u - hO) No order‘as to costs. Sd/— Chief Justice i h it i ~** e ce ; ir