8 tep?8'^ f- fi ^SI.&N^ f HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. ^ Appellant Reseondents hfljsc. Appeal No. 102 of 2005 Neelkanth Dhruv, S/o Birashingh Dhruv, Cast - Gond Aged about 32 years, R/o Village Gandadih, Post Khokhali, PS Bhatapara, Village Distt RaipurCG , < VERSUS 1. Kamal Singh, S/o; Sampat Singh, Cast Kshatri aged about 24 years, R/o Bangla Yard, Railway Colony Quarter No. 1225/4 PS Tarbahar Distt Bilaspur CG (Driver of Auto bearing No.CG 10A/0165) 2. Bachchn Singh, S/o Sampat Singh, Cast Kshatri aged about 32 years, R/o Bangla Yard, Railway Colony Quarter No. 1225/4, PS Tarbahar Distt Bilaspur CG (Owner of Auto bearing No.CG 10A/0165) 3. The Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Branch Office - B - Taha Complex, Priyadarsni Nagar Bilaspur (CG) MtSC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT,1988 Present: Ms Kiran Jain, counsel for the appeltant. Shri Gautam Kshetrpal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER >th (29mApril,2011) "%9S P iu3}xs 941 o» A»!|!qesipluaueLUJsd ui Duitinsej sajnpej.t Buipnpui seunfui snouss 9|d!i|niu pauietsns IUBIUIEIO /jue||sdde sq) i|Bnoq} A|UO -/OOS'l-S'sa p uoiiesuadiuoo MO| SuipjeMB ui pajjs SBL) |eunqui eyt iei4» peuiiuqns iUB||3dde 9i|t jo^ issunoo psujesi 'urer uejix s|/\[ (^ •pessessB uoiiesusduuoo sijuo %09 A|UO 9M939J 01 p3|t U3 sem SL| 'iueiuiep SL|I 6uipn|oui epAojoioLU at|t uo siuednooo SSJLII aj9M 8J3i|( }ei|t Buipioy tueiuiep 941 01 pspje/ne SBM -/O09'l£"sy A|UO '-/O00'£9'sy }e (ueaiiep ei|i 0} 9|qeAed uosesusdiuoo aiii psssssse i)6noi|i |eunqui 9111 •IUBLUIBP eL|i 0} uoiiesuedLUOO Aed 019|qei| epAojoiouu 94} ^o jajnsui 941 p|34 |eunqui aqi (g 'tueLuAed lenpe ^o siep aq} iis uoitjisd IUIBIO sijt ^o Buiiy p s}ep aq} 0104 Lunuue J9d o/gg @ issjeiui qiim 6uo|e uoiiesuaduuoo se -/009'lS'sy 10 uins |BIO} e pspjemB |eunqyi e^ 'COOZ'WOZ uo luepiooe jotoiu sijt ui LUIII Aq pauieisns ssunfui 941 joj. py S3|0!4aA JOlon aw P 991, UOI.RSS JSpun uosiisd tuiep e BUI.IIJ Aq 'iueaiiep flUB||9dde 8L|i Aq pSLUiep -/000'1.9'Zt'sy io uoiiesusdiuoo aq} tsuieBe sy (Z •WOZ/ZZI-'ON SSBQ LUIEIO ui passed 'WOZ'Ol'OS ps»epPJBMB epiA (,|eunqui 3L|t, yoi<s jo^) jndse|ig 'ieunqyi siuieio tusppoy J0io|/\| |euoi}!ppv ti,6 e4l ^cl pspjeme uoiiesusdiuoo 34} jo tusujsouELiue Bui^sas si Anjiia ^ue>||83N }uew \3 flue||addv T'O 'eidng Aeefey Aq psssed SBM ynoo sijt ^o jepjo BUIMO||O^ 3i|i ^ 5) Shri Gautam Kshetrapal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the motorcycle on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.31,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 6) Claimant Neelkanth Dhruv was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident. He was a carpenter by occupation. The claimant sustained multiple injuries including fractures in the motor accident is established from the evidence of AW/2 Dr B.K Vaishnav and AW/3 Dr TA Shyam. It is a matter of common knowledge that sufficient amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. As the claimant was. a carpenter by occupation, he on account of the fracture of his right leg, could not have performed his duties as carpenter for a period of 4 to 6 months resulting monitory loss to him. 7) The compensation of Rs.63,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above-mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is on the lower- side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 8) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal ought .to have assessed the compensation in the case at Rs.1,00,000/-. 9) We, therefore.assessthetotalcompensationinthecaseat Rs.1,00,000/-. Since the Tribunal found that the claimant also contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%, the claimant is entitled to receive only 50% of Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. Rs.50,000/- as compensation. As the claimant has already received Rs.31,500/- under the impugned award, now he is entitled to receive the balance amount of Rs.18,500/-. The claimant is further awarded Rs.1,500/- as quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.18,500/-. 10) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further 'sum of Rs.18,500/- as enhanced amount of compensation and Rs.1,500/- as quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.18,500/-. 11) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time Tor depositing the total sum of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.18,500/- towards enhanced amount of compensation + Rs.1,500/- towards quantified amount of interest on the enhanced amount ofcompensation of Rs.18,500/-) before the concerning claims Tribunal. 12) No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma Sd/- Chief Justice