w HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIV!SION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal No. 971 ’of 2005. Appellant Suresh Kumar Parida, S/o Late K.C. Claimant Parida, aged about 40 years, R/o Block 3/D, Street 19A, Sector 5, Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Neelesh Verma, S/o Shri Nathuram Verma, aged about 20 years R/o 23/F, Risali, Sector, Thana Naval, Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.~G.) (Driver) Respondents 2. Nathuram Verma, S/o Shri Ramanath Verma, aged about not mentioned, R/o 23/F, Risali Sector, Thana Navai, Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.). (Owner). 3. Manager, National insurance Company Limited, Branch No.1, Bhutani Complex, G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.). (insurance Company). Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present : Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Shri Praveen Dhurandhar, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (16m June, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by h Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appeliant/claimant Suresh Kumar Parida is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 7‘“ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Durg (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.03.2005, passed in Claim Case No.154l2003. 2). As against the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/— claimed by the appellant/claimant by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.12.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.62,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Suresh Kumar Parida sustained multiple injuries in the motor accident on 28.12.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.07F/1670; as the above offending vehicle Motorcycle, on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not tiled any appeal against the award: the above findingsrecorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. — 7 V ,_,.‘3M‘) «wk @ 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident, awarded Rs.25,000/— for grievous injuries; Rs.15,000/— for special diet; Rs.10,000/— for conveyance; Rs.7,000/- for attendant; and Rs.5,000l— for pain and suffering. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.62,000/— 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.62,000/— @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.62,000/— only, though the claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to' the extent of 40%. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned ‘counsel for respondent No.3 the a: National insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle Motorcycle, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.62,000/‘- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) Shri Praveen Dhurandhar,‘ learned counsel for respondents No.1 Neelesh Verma and No.2 Nathuram Verma, motorcyclist and the owner of the motorcycle also supported the award. c @ 9) Claimant Suresh Kumar Parida was aged about 40 years on the date of the accident. He was working in Bhilai Steel Plant getting salary of Rs.12,254/- per month. The claimant in his evidence before the Tribunal admitted that the employees of the Bhilai Steel Plant are entitled to free treatment in Sector-9 hospital where he was treated. The claimant though stated that the employees are required to pay for those medicines which are not available in the hospital, but in the present case no medical prescription was produced before the Tribunal to establish that the . doctors of Sector-9 hospital prescribed some medicines whichgwere not available in the hospital. The claimant further admitted that even after the accident he was getting the same salary and working on the same post on which he was working prior to the accident. Thus, it is apparent that there was no loss in the future earning capacity on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident. lt is true that the claimant remained hospitalized for more than one month and the Tribunal has not awarded any some towards loss of leave for that period. The claimant certainly was entitled to get some amount in that behalf. 10) The compensation of Rs.62,000/— awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion; is somewhat on the lower side s and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 11) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.20,000/— inclusive of interest p @ component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.62,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.20,000/— before the concerning Claims Tribunal. ‘4. subbu r. 14) No order as to costs. \ Sd/— l. v sit/- 7 Chief Justice 1 ‘ N. K. Agarwa‘ f Judge