iiiGi-I QgURT CF CHHATTISGARH AT EELQSPU? DHVISION BENCH ‘ CG: RAM HOBL N§E SHRI RAJEEV GUPA T C J L£OP ’BL“ SPR' $ N’L KUMAR $INE—‘A J Misc. Anneai No. 694 of 2on2 / J Anpeiiant Claimant Baiad Ram $ahu S/o $itaram Sahu age 48 years, R/c; VH & Post Kharpa; PS Abanpur: Disirict Raipur VERSUS Krishna Bhan Das Sio Chin‘ramani Das, R/o T§karafaéra (Neqa' Qatara Raipur Gff Khaisa Road lines Bambay Market, Ra§pur Guru Charan Singh Khalsa /o Devendra Singh Khalsa, ‘Kha%sagR6ad Carrier T‘atibandh, Raipur New India insurance C0. Ltd, Throucrhv Divisionar Manager, Dévisrana! OffiBe Madina Buiiding Jaii Road: Raipur Resncndents V Nan-agpiécants Misc Anneal under Section 173 of the Mater Vehlcles Act, 1983 resent : Shri Prafuii Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat. counsel for the appeiiant. None for respondents No.1 and 2 though served Shri Sudhir Agrawai and Shri P Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (?‘“ septsmber. .2919) The foiiowing order of the Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Court was passed by S , P . Appeiiant Balad Ram Sahu is geeking enhancement of the ccmpensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award ‘ dated 13.62.2001, passed in Ciaim Case No.140i1998. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,69,0(30/—,‘ciaimed by the appeliantfclaimant, by filing a claimpetition under Section 168‘ of the Motor Vehicies Act, for the iniuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17.02.1998. the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.62,00G/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 10% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim cetiticn till the date of ’ j actual payment. 13'). The Tribunai on a close scrutinv of the entire evidence led before it held that ciaimant Balad Ram Sahu sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 17.02.1998; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.1vlP-23-DAJO2ST ; as the offending vehicle Truck an the date of the accident was insured with the New lndia insurance Company Limited, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. :5) ’ The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the iniuries'prcved to have been sustained bv the ciaimant in the motor ‘ accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, an? ‘ éwarded Rs.14,13’§/- towards medical expenses; F23.1"£),OOO/— ‘ towards conveyance; RSJQDOW- towards ioss of future earning capacity; Rs.275,SOD/- /towards pain and suffering and i inconvenience. caused on account of the disabiiity; Rs.3,DGG!—l " towards toss of income during the perioot of treatment. The 'Tribunai, thus, assessed the totai compensation at Rs.62,131/—, which was rounded off to RSEZOOG/L. The Tribunai further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation § k ‘of Rs.62,000/— @ 10% pet annum from the date of the fiiing of the t ciaim petition tiii the date of actual payment. '6) ' Shri Pratuil Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat: learned counset j [ for l the appetlant submitted _ that the Tribunal . has erred in awarding tow compensation'of Rs.62,DOG!— onty. T) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shrt P: Dutta; learned counset for respondent No.3 the New tndla insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the n l l l proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present l l ’ compensation of ’Rs.62:OOOI- awarded by the Tribunal is just and I - , _ l CSSS. ‘ 8) in a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Sourts I Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. it should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor abonanza. § i l l l l l i l i i , I a l l iii) Appellantj’ claimant Balad Ram Sahu was aged about 48$ years on the date of the accident. He was an agriculturist it E y i i ‘ \ I l i l ma J i V 1 1 € 1 f l 1 I ‘ i 1 ‘ ‘ ; i ‘ ‘ i x ‘ ,_- I \ ¢ t } ‘ is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. It is apparent : t that on account of the fractures sustained by the ciaiman’t in his left ieo. he could not haveattended the cuitivation of his agricuiturai‘ land for a period of about 4 —6 months. 10) “The compensation of Rs.62,0DD/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainty somewhat on the lower side 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.11,DGD/- inclusive of interest 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 inresent case. i2) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is i having agriCuitural land to the extent of 4 acres. in addition, he ctaimed that he was operating a hauler machine in the viliage. The evidence of AW-S Dr. S. Fuiiare estabiished that the‘claimant sustained muitipte fractures in his ieft teg. Though AW—3 Dr. SFuijare has certified that the ciaimant suffered permanent disabiiity to the extent of 86% on account of the injuries and fractures sustained by him in the motor accident, he 'never treated the ciaimant for those injuries. Neither he was a member of the Medical Board nor the disabiiity certificate has been issued by the Board. it is a matter of common knowledge that substantiai amount V awarded further sum of R51 1 ,GOOI- inciusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensatibn in addition to the sum of Rs.62.00GI- awarded by the Tribunat. 13') Respondent No.3 the New tndia insurance Company Limited is granted three months‘ time for depositing the totai sum of R331 1 ,OOGI- before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. 14) No order as to costs. sdl— j 1. //L Suni‘K“mar SgnhWM K K, ‘_ ‘wwx i Sd/- Ju ge r ‘ u i CHIEF JUSTICE i