o. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 941 of 2007 ^ Appellant Original complainant Kumari Poonam Lahoti, age 20 years, d/o Shri Rajendra 'Kumar Lahoti, D-127, Shiv Kunj, Sector 5, Devendra Nagar, Raipur C.G. VERSUS Respondents Original non- applicants 1. Smt. Savita Dubey, w/o. Shri Shesh Narayan Dubey, P.0. Paragaon, Arang Distt. Raipur C.G. (OwnerTruck No. C.G.04-G-7849) 2. Balram Dhruva s/o Shri Jeevan Dhruva P.0. Paragaon,Arang Distt. Raipur C.G. (Driver Truck No. C.G.04-G-7849) LicenseNo..10075/RPR/96 Validity-01.04.2008 3. The New India Assurance Company Limited through Senior Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.1, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur C.G. (Insurance Company Truck No. C.G.04-G-7849) Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Virendra Janardhan, counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhay Tiwari, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.^. ORDER ^th (09tnSeptember,2011) M.A.C.- No. 941 of 2007 .\ ^* The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/ claimant Kumari Poonam Lahoti is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur(for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.04.2007, passed in Claim Case No.55/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- claimed by the appellanVclaimant, byfiling a claim petition underSection 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 04.06.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,10,593/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% 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 the New India Assur^nce Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.- 04-G-7849, liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Truck has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same has now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount iproved to have spent on treatment, awarded \.i Rs. 1,03,5937- towards medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; and Rs.2,000/- for special diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,10,593/- as compensation to the (^) M.A.C. No. 941 of 2007 claimant for the injuriessustained by her in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amountof compensation of Rs.1,10,593/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Virendra Janardhan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards attendant and conveyance; and in awarding low sum of Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- only towards special diet and pain and suffering; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,10,593/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the claimant did not suffer any permanent disability on account of the injuries and fractures sustained by her in the motor accident, the compensation of Rs.1,10,593/- awarded by the TribunaJ is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the presentcase. 8) Shri Abhay Tiwari, learned counsel for respondents No.1 Smt. Savita Dubey, and No.2 Balram Dhruva, the owner and driver ofthe offending vehicle Truck, also supported the award. 9) Claimant Kumari Poonam Lahoti was aged about 20 years on the date of the accident. She was studying in third year of M.B.B.S. Course. The claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in both the legs is borne out from the evidence available on record. It is a matterof common knowledge that substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment offractures. It is true that the M.A.C. No. 941 of 2007 i^^ii:- claimant could not establish by producing a disability certificate before the Tribunal and examining a doctor in that behalf that the claimant sustained permanent disability on account ofthose injuries. The Tribunalcertainly has erred in not awarding any sum towards conveyance and attendant; and in awarding only Rs.2,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards special diet and pain and suffering. 10) The compensation of Rs.1,10,593/- 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 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.15,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.1,10,593/- 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.15,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount ofcompensation in addition to the sum of Rs.1,10,593/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13) Respondent No.3 the New India Assurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.15,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 14) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge ^'^ ^'