^ (^ HjGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH'AT \ SB: Hon'bie Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A.Np.39?ot2Q07^' APPELLAN1 Duiarabai Tarak Versus Chandrahas Yadav and others. ORDER For Pronouncement of Order o~] J34.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge k\ g) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARN : BJLASPUR BENCH: HON'BLE R.LJHANWAR, J. APPELLANT Clalmant RESPONDENTS lion_-a_ppllcaiits M.A.IONo. 387 of 2007 Duiarabai Tarak, W/o Bharat Tarak aged about 40 years, R/o Viliage and Post Kathiya, Thana ~ Gobra Nayapara, Djstrict. Raip-jr(C.G.) 1. Chandrahas Yadav. S/o Shlkariram Yadav, aged about 32 years, R/o Aamner, Thana Abhanpur, district-Ralpur (CG.) (Driver of the Vehicie Jeep Taxi Bearlng Regd. No. CG 06/ZA 202.3) 2. Krishna Kumar Slnha, S/o Budnram Sjrtha, R/o Vjijage & Post Kathiya, Thana Gobra Nawapara, Disrict Raipur (C,G.) (Owner of the Vehicle Jeep Taxi Bearing Regd. No. CG OS/ZA 2023) 3. Naticna! Insurance Company Llmited, through Its Divislonai Manager National Insurance Company Limitea Mobjn MahaS; G.E. Road, District Raipur (C.G.) (insurer of the Vehicie Jeep Taxi Bearing Regd. No. CG 06/ZA 2023) 4. Raj Kumar Kannade (Kande) S/o not know^ R/o Godhari Birkona,. Mahasamund, Tehslj & District iviahasamund (C.G,) (Registered owner of the Vehicie Jeep Taxi Bearing Regd. No. CG 06,'ZA 2023) APPEAL SECTJON 173 OF THS ^OIQRVBilCLES.ACT Appearance: Shri K.K.Dewangan, counsei forthe appeStant. None for the respondents No.1; 2 and 4. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3 ORDER (Passedon^.04.2011) Thjs is dajmant's appeai dlrectlng against the jmpugned award dated 25.02.200^ passed by the 1S! Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur Jn daim oase No. 35/2005 whereby a sum cf \ Rs.4,38,000/- was a^arded bythe Tribunai in an Enjury case. \ 2. As against the- compensatEon of Rs..6,86,000/'a clajmed by the appetlant by fEHng cEaim petition under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehjcles Act for the injuries sustained Jnthe motor accident, the Tribuna! ^•^ f£^ 1 ^? awarded-a total sum of Rs.4,38,000/'- as compensation to the ciaimant along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of fiiing of ciaim petition tii! reaiization of actual amount. 3. Shri K.K.Dewangan, learned counsel for the appeiiant / cialmant argued that the iearned Ciaims Tribunal has erred in taking the monthly income of the deceased at Rs.tSOO/- whereas it ought to have'been at Rs.3000/" co-nsidering the notional income as it prevaiis upon today. Qn these premise, he urged that compensatEon amount may be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, Shri Dashrath Gupta, Eearned counsel fcr the insurance company. argued that the learned CEaEms Tribunai,' after appreciating.the evidence led before it, has rightly awarded Rs.4,38,000/" as compensation and although the same is on higher s|de but iooking to the Injuries sustalned by the claimant, the amount of compensaticn is just and proper compensation.' 5. . Admittediy, cn 10.01.2005 the appellant/ciaimant received injuries when she was going to Raipur in the Jeep bearing C.G. 06 ZA 2023 (for short 'the offending vehicie') 'whlch was being driven by its dnver / respondent No.1 in a rash and negiigent manner. The Tribunai heid that due to rash and negiigent manner of driver of offending vehicle, the clalmant received injuries; as the offending vehicie was insured with the National insurance Company Limited, the insurance company v</as aiso Habie to pay compensation to the daimant. Since there Is no appea! by the ov'/ner or insurer againstthe impugned award, the fjndings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained fjnaiity. 6. Smt. Dulara Bai A.W.1 (appeiiant herein) has deposed that due to accident caused by respondent No.1 she fe!l down and sustained fracture cn her back bone and vertebra due to 'which she was sufferine from paraiytic attack cn both !ower Eimbs. According to her, she was admitted tn C.G. HospitaE, Raipur and also En so many hospitais. She has further \ deposed that'due to such injuries her both Eower limbs were compEeteEy not working, as^ resuEt thereof, she Es unable to rnove frorn here and there. Dr. Sandeep Sahu A.W.3 has stated that upon examination he found compiete paraplegia with partiai weakness over both upper iimb^ due to injuries sustained by her. He has also deposed that she Vi/as comp!ete!y unabie to sit and IharaJs dislocation in the bone neck and "^y^ 'c'^~v\ ^•^'l •^•y '2°> vertebra. He has further deposed that he has issued to the appe!!ant dlsability certificate to the extent of 75%, which was exhibited as Ex.P<45. As against this, neither the insurer nor the owner of the offendlng vehide has produced anything. 7. The Tribuna!, on ciose scrutiny of the evidence ied before it, found that the appe!!ant Duiara Bai suffered 100% compiete disablement/due to v^hich, she is compieteiy unable to move here and there and taking into consideration facts and circumstances of the case fixed her monthiy income at Rs.1500/- and Rs.18,000/- per annum. ' Looking to her age at 40, applied .muitEpEier of 16 and determined ioss of income at Rs.2,88,000/-. Thereafter, the Tribunal, taking into consideration her ciisability to the extent of 75%, awarded Rs.75,000/-, Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance charges incurred during the course of her hospsitailsation, Rs.203000/M- towards pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/M towards^ expenses incurred in treatment, Rs.10,000/- towards expenses incurred on attendant during the course oftreatment and Rs.5000/- towards specia! diet. in this manner, the Tribunal v^orked out totai compensatlon to Rs.4,38,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appeliant in the motor accident. 8. . The argument that the Tribunai ought to have taken notionai income whiie fixing the income of the appeiiant is unacceptable because the Tribunai has aiready awarded Rs.75,000/- for permanent disabiiity, Rs.1500Q/- towards conveyance and Rs.10,000/" towards expenses for attendant whi!e she remained in hospitai. 1 am of the considered opinion that the aforesaid amounts are already on higher side and the Tribunal has not committed any error in awarding such amounts under permissibie heads, More over, the Tribunai used mujtipiier of 16 taking into consideration her age and permanent disability to the extent of 75%. The approach of the Tribuna! in working out the tota! compensation Is absoluteiy proper because the Tribunai has already awarded higher compensation.' (t. 9. Having thus considersd, 1 flnd no scope for enhancement of the compensation. Thus^, the impugned award by the Tribuna! is impeccabie. 1.C). in the resuit, the ap.peal for enhancement, being devoid of merit and substance, Is !iab!e to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge