"•••' ,tff---~"*^ ''^ %> 'is^,,,^/, ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant/ Claimant Respondents Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 586 of2011 Narendra Prasad Diwedi, s/o Kamta Prasad Diwedi, age43 years, caste Bcahmin, r/o veterinary hospital, Kuwarpur (Janakpur), distt. Koriya C.G. At present R/o Vill. Budwa, Thana & Tah. Vyohari, distt. Shahdol M.P. VERSUS 1. Riyajuddin @ Raju, s/o Waplharuddin, age 22 years, r/o Dabripara, Baikunthpur, distt. Koriya C.G. (Non applicant No.1) 2 Jitendra Kumar Sahu, s/o late Ramkishun Sahu, r/o Main Road, Shubhash Chowk, Surajpur, distt. Sarguja C.G. (Non applicant No.2) 3 United India Insurance Co. Ltd., through Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Bramh Road, Ambikapur, distt. Sarguja C.G. (Non applicant No.3) Wlisc. ARpeal under Section 173 ofihe IVIotor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, counsel for the appellant. ORDER ith (04InAugust,2011) M.A.C.No. 586 of 2011 v^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appellant/ claimant Narendra Prasad Diwedi is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Clauns Tribunal, Manendragarh, district Koriya (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.11.2010, passed in Claim Case No.57/2009. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.4,91,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 24.02.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.96,011/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-15-D/7516, liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 5) The Tribunal considering -the number and nature of the injuries proved to have be'en sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have spent on treatment, awarded Rs.46,771/- towards medical expenses; Rs.29,240/- towards conveyance; Rs.12,000/- for attendant; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; and Rs.3,000/- forspecial diet. iESS'.'^L;-.:.;'..; MAC.No. 586 of 2011 The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.96,011/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.96,011/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Sanjay Agrawal, 4earned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that The Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.96,011/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in temporary disability to the extent of 30%. 7) Claimant Narendra Prasad Diwedi was aged about 43 years on the date of the accident. He was working as Compounder in a Veterinary Hospital. It is true that the claimant sustained fracture of his femur bone in the motor accident, but the disability certificate issued by Dr. Rajendra Bansaria, Ex.P/29 specifically mentions that the disability suffered by the claimant was of temporary nature. As such, the Tribunal has rightly denied the compensation to the claimant towards loss in the future earning capacity. Even otherwise, it is not the claimant's case that on account of the injuries and fracture sustained by him in the motor accident, eithgr he has been removed fromservice; or his salary has been reduced; or he has been denied any promotion which is due. The claimant being in government service, in all likelihood, entire medical expenses must have been reimbursed by the State Government. 4 MAC.No. 586 of 2011 /^ \'.- 8) The compensation of Rs.96,011/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, can never be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 9) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge