c-; IN THE HON'BLE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT AT BILAPUR C.G. MISCLANIOUS APPEAL (C) No.- APPELLANT '/2008 SR3l8 8851S ^tjaneseri Bai D/o Shri Dadu, Caste by [Claimant] ; ^c;.... Uraon aged 18 years, R/o - Post Rajga, P.S. f-.v''" fi^^^ ^»y tK" s^*- '??»*^ tA"' \yt Shakti, Distt. Janjgir- Champa [C.G.] VERSUS 1 ; \L-f' RESPONDENTS /"- r'/[Driver] 1. Rohit Kumar Yadav S/o Chintaram aged 33 years, R/o Village- Teinar Tah. and P.S. Shakti Distt. - Janjgir- Champa C.G. [Owner] 2. ^ Gajanand Agarwal S/o Ganpat Rao Agrawal, R/o Ghandhi Chowk,Nailla Janjgir , Distt.- Janjgir- Champa C.G. [Insurance Co.] 3. ^. National Insurance Company Limited Jone Office- Bilaspur, Taha Complex, Priyadersani Nagar, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspi.u" Distt. -BUaspur C.G. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173_QEMQTOR VEHICLEACT 1988:- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C)No. 1566 of2008 APPELLANT Qaunant RESPONDENTS Khelan Bai YEItSTJS Rohit Kumar Yadav & others & APPELLANT aaimajnt Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1570 of2008 Ganeseri Bai VERSUS RESPONDENTS R-ohit Kumar Yadav & others (Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act) SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal Present : Shri MK Baeg, Advocate for the appellant. NoneforrespondentNo. 1 &2. Shri SC Verma, Advocate for respondent No.37National Insurance Co. Ltd. AWARD (Passedon 29.03.2011) Counsel for the parties submit that the matter can be heard even in the absence ofrespondent No. 1 & 2,therefore matter is heard finally. 1. By this common award, MA(C) No. 1556/08 and 1570/08 ars t being disposed of as the common facts & issues are involved in both fhe appeals and are arise oirt of same accident. JfSSi a"!Ba""~..-~, "%. ^ ';''.. ;: ^. These appeals have been directed by the claimant against the award dated 26.07.2008, passed by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sakti, Distt. Janjgir Champa (for short 'the Tribunar) in claim case Nos. 55/07 and 57/07, whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 12,000/- and 15,000/- has been awarded by the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by the appellants/claimants in the accident dated 26.10.2006. 3. As per claimants' version, on 26.10.2006, while the appeUants were sitting in the Tnick (Dumper) bearing registration No. CG-ll-ZB- 0491 as a labour, the said Trock tumed tiirtle as a result of which they sustained multiple injuries. 4. The claimants preferred claim petitions under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, (for short 'MV Act') claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by them in the said accideat against the driver/owner and insurance company of the Truck in question. 5. The Tribunal, on a close scnrtiny of the evidenee led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, held : appellant (in case No. MAC 1566/08) suslained stif&iess in the left knee & ankle and sustained temporary disability to the extent of 30 percent, and appellant (in case No. MAC 1570/08) sustained stiflness in right shoulder and sustained temporary disability to the extent of 20 percent, awarded a sum of Rs. 12,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- ~ respectively to the claimants as compensation for the injuries l!:i!-::" i'!'•[' I"; !'.;-l'.SiEaiKS ESffi sustained by them in the accident along with interest @ 9 percent per annum from the date of application till its realization holding the appellant/insurance company liable for its paymeat. 6. Shri Baeg, leamed counse! appearing for the appellants would submit: the amount awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on lower side, looking to the iajiiries sustained by the appe'lants, the tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 25,000/- and 20,000/- respectively to the claimants, and therefore, the award amouct be suitably enhanced. 7. On the other hand, Shri Verma, learned coimsel appearing for respondent No.3,/Insurance Company would submit : the amount awarded is just and reasonable and there is no scope of interference in the amount ofcompensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the records ofTribunal and also award impugned. 9. As per the evidence of Dr. Hari Singh Chandel (AW-3) the appellant (in case No. MAC 1566/08) sustained stiffaess in the left knee & ankle and sustained temporary disability to the extent of 30 percent, and appellant (in case No. MAC 1570/08) sustained stifihess in right shoulder and sustained temporary disability to the extent of 20 percent, therefore, looking to the injuries sustained by the appellants/claimants, in the considered opinion ofthis court, the amount awarded is on lower side which deserve to be enhanced. Considering the injures sustained by the appellants/claimants and also coasidering the arguments advanced by both the parties, in my considered opinion, the appellant/Khelan Bai (in case No. MAC 1566/08) is entitled for a fiirther lump-sum amount ofRs. 10,000/- and appellant/Ganeseri Bai (in case No. MAC 1570/08) is entitled for a further lump-sum amount of Rs. 5000/- as compensation, in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. 11. In view of above, the appeals are allowed in part. Tfae appellant/Khelan Bai (in case No. MAC 1566/08) is entitled for a total sum of Rs. 22,000/- in place of Rs. 12,000/- and appellant/Ganeseri Bai (in case No. MAC 1570/08) is entitled for a total sum of Rs. 20,000,/- in place of Rs. 15,000/- already awarded by the Tribunal. The enhanced amount of compensation i.e. Rs. 10,000/- in MAC No. 1566/08 and Rs. 5,000/- in case No. 1570/08 shall cany interest at the rate of6% per anmim from the date ofapplication till its payment, 12. The respondent No. 3/insurance company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount within a period of two months from today along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application. No order asto costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge Sahu