,y ^-v . S S^M'"^ |i"tBi-^§ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Appellant HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV QUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 1040 of 2003 Pawan Kumar Dhruv son of Virendra Singh Dhruv aged 24 years r/o village Mohgaon, P.S. Palari, district Ralpur f"" '.^->. Respondents VERSUS Basant Chauhan son of Thukel Chauhan, aged 25 years r/o Tilffapara P.S. Tikrapara, district Raipur, C.G. (Driver of the vehicle) Rajendra Singh son of Chhedilal Singh R/o near Nutan High Schooi, Tikrapara P.S. Tikrapara, district Raipur, C.G. (Owner of the vehicte) The New India Insurance Company Co. Ltd., through Branch Manager, Madeena Building, Kachahari Chauk, Raipur District Raipur C.G. Miscellaneous Appeal under Sectton 173 of IVIotor Vehicie Act Present : Shri Pawan Kesharwani, counsel for the appeilant. None forrespondentsNo.1 and 2. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondentNo.3. ORDER ith (13'" December, 2010) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. i&;i'":9"""r ^JV.N ^•^E63^! Appellant Pawan Kumar Dhruv is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident 4 . Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunat') vide award dated 05.05.2003, passed in Claim Case No.26/2001. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,70,000/- ciaimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.09.2000, the Tribunal awarded a totalsum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of aetual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it hetd that claimant Pawan Kumar Dhruv sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 02.09.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negtigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.MBT-9300; as the above offending vehicle Truck, on the date of the accident, was insured with the New India Insurance Gompany 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 injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on the l-'-s-' j') ': : i treatment, awarded lump-sum of Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.30,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the ctaim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appeilant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.30,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures resultlng in permanent disability to the extent of 30%. 7) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) Claimant Pawan Kumar Dhruv was aged about 24 years on the date of the accident. He was earning his livelihood by running a Pan Shop. He sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures resulting in permanent disabitity is established from the evidence of AW3 Dr. Anil Kumar Verma. The claimant after his treatment can perform his duties in a normal manner, according to the opinion of AW3 Dr. Anil Kumar Verma, as stated by him in para 2 of his deposition before the Tribunal. It is a matter of common knowledgethat substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. 9) The compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above-mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 10) Considering all the relevant aspects ofthe matter, we are of the opinion that furtheraward of Rs.11,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensationof Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) 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.1 1,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of eompensation, in addition to the sum of Rs.30,000/- awarded bythe Tribunal. 12) Respondent No.3 the New tndia Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.11,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 13) No order as to costs. l Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu x'-