^o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A.(C)No.290of2QTO APPEy.ANT RESPONDENTS Smt Geeta Bai. Versus Jitendra Umrao and others. ORDER For Pronouncement of Order O .03.2011 Sd/- R.£,.Jhanwar Judge ^)<£^K;.^^ ^•^. "^ ••.: ^'^S'S^ T •fi "^ ''•sx v'"^ '""SSMael!'1' if HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.LJHANWAR. J. Misc. Appeal (0 No.290 of 2009 APPELLANT RESPQNDENTS Smt. Geeta Bai, age 48 Yrs. S/o Bansilal Dhruv, Occupation - Labourer, R/o Ward No. 18, Deraoara, Near Advani Schoo!, Birgaon, Thana-Uria, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Jitendra Umrao, Age 29 years, S/o Ramawtar Umrao, R/o Hirapur, Thana - Aamanaka, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Archana Modi, W/o Sanjay Modi, R/o 141, H.I.G.-1, Pandit Dindaya! Upadhyay Nagar, Dangania, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur. 3. M/s Bajaj Aliens General Insurance Co. Ud., Through Divisionai Manager, Divisional Office-Jeevan Beema Marg, Pandri, Disirict Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR_VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Appearance: Shri S. K. Guha, counsel for the appellantfclaimant. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Raj Awasthy appears on behalf of Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon O^ .03.2011) This is claimant's appeal. Not being satisfied by the amount of compensation of Rs.84,855/- awarded by the 12 Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur, in Claim case No.42/2006, the claimant preferred this instant appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.20,30,000/- claimed by the clai^nant by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short the Act') for injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 04.06.2004, the Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence, material :;;a-atEs.. \ § I Y Vy i:'1?'.-,^ '•? ..^S''~ ^ piaced and submissions made by the respective parties before it, held that respondent No.1 was driving the Motorcycie bearing No. C.G. 04A 9539 (for short 'the pffending vehicle'); due to rash and negligent act, the appeiiant sustained injuries and as the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3, the insurance company was liable for payment of compensation and awarded total compensation of Rs.84,855/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition til! reatization. 3. As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the impugned order, the findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 4. The Tribunal, considering the number and nature of injuries proved to have been sustained by the appellant in the motor accident on 4.6.2004 and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.1505/- towards medical expenses; Rs.4000/- towards special diet, attendant's expenses and conveyance; Rs.3450/- towards loss of income and taking into account the age of the appellant between 50 - 55 years applied multiplier of 11 and then fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2300/- and Rs.27,600/-. The Tribunal, in order to assess the appeilant's toss offuture income, multipiied the amount of Rs.27,600/- with the multiplier of 11 and then worked Out total compensation of Rs.3,03,600/-. Thereafter, the Tribunal fixed the appellanfs total loss of working capacity and loss of earning at 25% and after deducting 25% from Rs.3,03,600/-, a sum of Rs.75,900/- was worked out as the appellant's total loss of future income. By adding Rs.8955/-, total compensation payable to appellant/claimant was worked out by the Tribunal to Rs.84,855/-. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant argued that learned Claims Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 11 between the age group of 50 - 55 whereas it should be 13 for the age of 50 years since the age of the appellant, according to her, was 49 years at the time of accident. He further argued that even not a single penny has been awarded under the head pain and suffering. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for ttie insurance company argued ttiat the appellant has not produced any medical bills and ^ss.saae.^, \ '•% ~ '^ ^ ''^. ''^ Q^^:'.J^ ^) piaced and submissions made by the respective parties before it, held that respondent No.1 was driving the Motorcycie bearing No. C.G. 04A 9539 (for short 'the pffending vehicle'); due to rash and negligent act, the appellant sustained injuries and as the offending vehicle was insured with the respondent No.3, the insurance company was liable for payment of compensation and awarded total compensation of Rs.84,855/- with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of ctaim petition tili realization. 3. As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the impugned order, the findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 4. The Tribunal, considering the number and nature of injuries proved to have been sustained by the appellarrt in the motor accident on 4.6.2004 and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.1505/- towards medical expenses; Rs.4000/- towards special diet, attendant's expenses and conveyance; Rs.3450/- towards loss of income and taking into account the age of the appellant between 50 - 55years applied multiplier of 11 and then fixed monthly income of the deceased at Rs.2300/- and Rs.27,600/-. The Tribunal, in order to assess the appellanfs loss offuture income, multiplied the amount of Rs.27,600/- with the multiplier of 11 and then worked out total compensation of Rs.3,03,600/-. Thereafter, the Tribunal fixed the appellant's total loss of working capacity and loss of eaming at 25% and after deducting 25% from Rs.3,03,600/-, a sum of Rs.75,900/- was worked out as the appellant's total loss of future income. By adding Rs.8955/-, total compensation payabte to appellant/claimant was worked out by the Tribunal to Rs.84,855/-; 5. Leamed counsel for the appellant/claimant argued that learned Claims Tribunal has adopted multiplier of 11 between the age group of 50 - 55 whereas it should be 13 fbr the age of 50 years since the age of the appellant, according to her, was 49 years at the time of accident. He further argued that even not a single penny has been awarded under the head pain and suffering. 6. On the other hand, leamed counsel appearing for the insurance company argued that the appellant has not produced any medical bills and ^^.:;^^.. '•• •'SSSKWs. I disability certificate has been issued after two years of accident. He further argued that Doctor who has examined the appellant was not a member of Medical Board nor he was a treating Doctor. He also argued that learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed disability as 25% and since the certificate does not show that the appellant suffered any permanent disability, the evidence adduced by Dr.G.S. Bachhu could not have been relied on. He further argued that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is on higher side. On these premises, he urged that compensation worked out bythe Tribunal may be reduced. 7. i have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the impugned order including record ofthe Tribunal. 8. Admittedly, the appeltant/claimant sustained injuries in the motor accident on 4.6.2004 when the offending vehicle, which was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, hit her. Thereafter, she was taken to Dr. Rohit Mishra's Hosptel situate at Fafadih and F.I.R. was also iodged. The leamed Claims Tribunal has, after appreciating the evidence of Smt. Gita Bai, held respondent No.1 liable for causing accident by driving theoffending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. As against this finding, no appeal has been filed by the owner or even by the insurer. Therefore, on this point the award by the Tribunal attained finality. 9. So far as disability detennined by the Tribunal is concemed, Dr. G.S.Bachhu A.W.3 has, after examining the appellant on 31.07.2006, issued the disability certificate to the extent of 45%. He has further stated that there was fracture of fibula on her right leg; she was not able to walk without the help of stick; unable to go up stairs and unable to stand meaning thereby she was completely unabte to perform her duties. The !earned Tribunal, taking the above facts into consideration, found the disability at 25% instead of 45%. 1 am of the opinion, the learned Tribunal did not commit any error in determining the 25% disability suffered by the appeliant. 10. As regards income of the appellant, on perusal of record there was no clinching evidence as to exact income of the appellant although it was pleaded that she was earning Rs.125/- by doing labour work in a factory. Despite without ttiere being any clinching evidence on the point of income, •m&'-y^ * i^.. the learned Tribunal has rightly fixed the income of the appellant at Rs.2300/- after considering the fact that at present an un-skilled labour gets daily wages at collector rate. Taking into account the fact that she was unabte to attend her duties for a period of one month, the Tribunal has determined the appellant's loss of income and then awarded a sum of Rs.3450/- towards loss of income, which finding cannot be faulted with. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.1505/- towards medical expenses; Rs.4000/- towards special diet, attendant's expenses and conveyance, which, ! am of the opinion, have rightly been awarded. Similariy, the Tribunal did not commit any error in assessing her total loss of working and earning capacity at 25%. 11. So far as multiplier of 11 adopted by the Tribunal is concerned, a perusalof Second Schedule appended to Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act would clearty reveal that between the age group of 50-55, multiplier of 11 has been given. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence as to age of the appellant, has rightly found that on the date of accident the appellant was above 50 years and below 55 years. 12. For the foregoing, l am of the opinion that the Tribunal, after appreeiating the evidence, oral as well as documentary, has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.84,855/- which is absolutely just and reasonable compensation and not even bonanza. 13, Seen from any angle, l do not find any iltegality and infirmity in the impugned order and thus sustainable under law. 14. In the result, the appeal for enhancement being devoid of merit and substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. - Sd/- R.£.Jhanwar Judge