^"'^ HIGHCQURTOFCHHATTISGARH:BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR. J. M.A, No. lOOOof 2007 APPELLANTS Claimants RESPONDENTS Sanjay Kumar Diwakar and another Versus Laxminarayan and others. ORDER Pronouncement of order :[b .08.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \$ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BJLASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. Misc. ADpeal (C) No. 1000 of 2007 APPELLANTS CLAIMANTS RESPONDENTS 1. Sanjay Kumar Diwakar, Son of Shri Satyaprakash Diwakar, aged about 14 years, Minor, through his natural guardian mother Smt. Saraswati Diwakar; 2. Smt. Saraswati Diwakar, aged about 36 years, Wife of Shri Satyaprakash Diwakar: Both are residents of Village Ameri, Police Station Chakerbhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Laxminarayan Son of Shri Budhari, Resident of Village Ameri, Police Station Chakerbhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. Tajender Singh Son of Shri Darshan Singh Punjabi, aged about 25 years, Resident of Telephone Exchange Road, In front of Geeta Lodge, Police station of Civil Lines, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) . 3. New India Insurance Company Limited, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Shri G.P.Kurre, counsel for the appellants. None for respondents No.l & 2. Shri Raj Awasthy, counsel for the respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon ^ .08.2010) '\ This appeal i.s directed against the impugned award dated 08.05.2007 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No.71/2005 whereby the ,\».;y; j"^s r^ ^ ^^K^ ^^"- ^- ~"D •^;:^^ Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.75,000/- along with interest at 7% per annum in an injurycase. 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal is that on 28.08.2003 at 6.00 a.m. appellant No.1 went to take bath at pipe water situate at outer side of the house, at the same time, non-applicant No.1 was driving the truck bearing registration No. C.G. 10 ZB-1446, owned by non-applicant No.2 and insured by non-applicant No.3, in a rash and negligent manner and hit the appellant No.1 and caused injuries on his waist, back and hips. 3. Claim petition seeking compensation of Rs. 13,00,0007- was filed wherein it was pleaded that parents are running provision stores and were earning Rs.400/- and due to accident, the provision stores was closed for a period of 57 days; studies of the injured remained incomplete and his future has become obscurity. •: 4. By filing their written statements, non-applicant No.2 & 3 denied the averments mentioned in the claim petition. Non-applicant No.1 was declared ex parte. 5. On close scrutiny ofthe evidence led before it, the Tribunal finding that on the date of accident, non-applicant No.1 was driving the said truck in a rash and negligent mannerand caused injuries to appellant No.1 and the said truck was insured with non-applicant No.3 awarded lump-sum of Rs.75000/- to the claimants. It is this order, the appellants are before.this Court for enhancement of award amount. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the Tribunal has awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.75,000/-whichis on lower side because the Tribunal did not consider the expenses to be incurred in future treatment and has erred in compensating loss of income due to injuries sustained by appellant No.1 in the accident. It was argued that the Tribunal has lost sight of the fact in awarding compensation for future treatment, loss ofwork and non-pecuniary damages. 7. On theother hand, the insurance company support^d the impugned order of the Tribunal and argued that the compensation as awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper looking to the facts and circumstances, therefore, the appeal shoulcLbe dismissed. ">',.^. ^y X, .'^.-- 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the impugned award and record of the Tribunal. 9. Before the Tribunal, non-applicant No.1, driver of the said truck remained ex parte. The owner of the truck denied all averments made in claim petition. The insurance company also denied the averments and specifically stated that repori: of incident was lodged after near about 8 to 9 months and after that filed a claim petition seeking compensation. If the accident took place due to use of motor vehicle, then certainly the complainant or his mother or father would have reported the matter immediately to the police station but in the present case but it was not done so. At the time of accident, the driver was not having valid licence. On these premises, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation. On perusal of record, it has come in the notice of this Court that F.1.R. was lodged after 9 mpnths of inddent and the appellant produced two types ofX-ray reports contradicting to eachother. 10. The learned Tribunal has awarded lump-sum of Rs.75,000/- after appreciating the evidence adduced by the parties, arguments advanced by them,oral and documentary evidence. It is clear from the pleadings and evidence adduced by the parties that the claimant - Sanjay Kumar was the student of VII class at the time of accident. Dr. Vinod Tiwari A.W.4 has stated that the claimant was admitted in his hospital for 57 days for treatment in his Nursing Home. He further deposed that the claimant has paid a sum of Rs.40,000/- to him. The learned Tribunal taking the note of evidence of Dr. Vinod Tiwari has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards expenses incurred in treatment, operation and medicalexpenses. The learned Tribunal in its detailed award has, after taking into consideration the facts that the amount of Rs.4652/- has been incurred towards purchase of medicines; suffered 50% permanent disability on account of accident and admitted in the Hospital for 52 days awarded lump-sum of Rs.75,000/-. 11. For the forQgoing reasons, in the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the evidence adduced by the parties, 1 art'i of the view that the lump-sum compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair compensation and the Tribunal has not erred in awardingsuch lump-sum compensation. By and large, the reasoning ^^^, ,;<'""^ ••:^^- , ^.->; recorded by the Tribunal is purely based on the clinching,credible and cogent evidence and thus calls for no interference. 12. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \l ^