L-^. .\ HSGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT SB: Hon'bie Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar; ^.A. (C)No. 957 of 2007 AP.PPLLANT RESPONDENTS Sadhuram Versus Dharamveer Verma and others. O RD E R For^_Pronouncenientof_Qrder 'iV'.04.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge MIII 1 '"^ Appellant Ciaimant Respondents HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BILASPUR Sing!e : Hon'bEe Shri Rajeshwar Lat Jhanwar, J. M.A. (Cl No. Sadhuram s/o Sukhara Kurre aged 45 years, R/o viiiage Kohraud, P.S. Kashdol, Tahsii Baiodabazar, District Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Dnaramveer Verma, son of DujTam Verma, aged 25 years, R/6 viilage Chhirra, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Raipur (CG) 2. Darasuram Sahu, s/o Battuia! Sahu, aged 45 years, R/o Pawnj, P.3. & Tahsii Silaigarh, Dlstrict Raipur (CG) 3 The New India Ensurance Company Limited, Civi! Line, Babdabazar, District Raipur (CG) 4. Gyan Prakash S/o K.R. Yadu, R'o viiiage Chhirra, P.S. & Tahsji BIJaigarh, Distnct Ralpur (CG) Ap&eai under Section 173 of the.Motor Vehides ActJ^988 Present: Shri Vljay Kumar Sahu, counsei for the appeiiant, Shri Sni! Das Kuideep, counse! for respondent No.1 None for respondent No.2 Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3 Shri Sunjj Sharma, counsei for respondent No.4. (Passed on _l^.04.2011) Appellant - Sadhuram Is seeklng enhancement of compensatjon of Rs.26,250/'- awarded by the 1st Additionai Motor Accidents CIaims Tribunai, Baiodabazar (for short 'the Cialms TribunaE) vide award 23.11,2006 in Claim Case No.89/2006. \< 2. As agalnst th^ compensation of Rs.S,68,600/- ciaimed by th-s appeiiant/ciaimant by fiiing claim petition under Sectlon 163 offhe Motor Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident-on 21.5.2005, the Trlbunai awarded a totai sum of. Rs.2S,250/" as compensation to the ciaimant aSong with interest at 7% per annum from the date offliing ofciaim petltion ti!! the date ofactuai payment. 3. The Tribuna! on a ciose scrutiny of the enti.-e evldence ied before it held that when ths cialmant Sadhuram was traveliing in the unregistered tractor troliey on 21.5.2005; the driver of Truck bearing No. C-.G. 04 ZC 5260 (for short "the offending vehicle") caused accident.by driving- the offending vehicle rashEy and negiigently, due to such accident, Sadhuram sustained Injuries; as the offending vehicle was, on the date of accident, insured with the New Endla insurance Company Limited, the insurance company was liable to pay compensatlon to the claimant. The Tribunal after scannsng the evidence also held the driver of tractor tro!Iey negiigent to the e^ent of 25% and remaining 75% w-as on the part of driver of offending vehicie. 4. As the. respondents have not fiied any agalnst the above Impugned order, the findings rscorded by the Tribunai have no-w attained finallty. 5, The Tribuna! considering the number and nature.of the injuries proved to have been sustainec! by ths claimant in the motor accident, the amount proved to have been spent on hls treatment and the certificate of disabjiity to the extent of 29% permanent disabiiity sustained by the appe!!ant, awarded Rs.30,000/- towards paln and suffering snd ateo for severe injuries; taklng into consideration the medicai prescrjptions Ex.P.14, 15; 17 and 19, awarded Rs.3000/-tov^rds expenses irscurred In treatment and Rs.2000/- towards expenses to be jncurred in future treatment. Thus, s sum of Rs.35,000/- as totai compensation has been worked out by the Tribunai to compensate the appeiiant for the Injuries sustalned by him In the motor accident. The Tribuna! further heid that since there was contributor^/ negiigence in the said accident, thersfore, ths appeiiant/ciasmant is entitied to receive 75% from ths amount of compensat'ion. Accordingly, the Tribunai was justified in av/ardlng a sum of Rs.23,250/-to the appe!!ant. \" S. Learned counsei for the appeiSants argued that jearned Tribuna! has erred in meager compensation of Rs.26,250/- oniy although the ^-^ appe!lant produced disabiiity certificate to the extent of 29%, which is proved by Dr. G.S.Bachu A.W.2. 7. . On the other hand, learned counsei appearing for the respondents argued in support ofthe impugned a\¥ard. 8. Ciaimant Mannu Dheemar was aged about 45 years cn the date of the •accident. He was a iabour by occupatlon. As there is no definite evidence about his incorne prior to the accident and after the accident, it is difficuit to hoid wlth any amount of certainty. However, it is ciear from his evidence that as per the advice of doctor he remalned admitted .in the Medica! Coliege Hospitai, Raipur w.e.f. 21.05.2005 tili 14.06.2005 and that injuries inciuding fracture cn ieft thigh sustained bythe appeilant were a!so proved by Dr. G.S.Bachu AW.2 who issued disabi!Ity certificate Ex.13 showing 29% permanent disabiijty. The evidence regarding appeilant received injuries .inciuding fracture in the motor accident, hls hospitajjzation for a period of about 24 days and the Injuries inciuding fracture were aiso proved by Dr. G.S.Bacnu A.W.2 and the fact the appeiiant suffered 29% permanent disabjiity cannot be discarded. !n the course of treatment, definitely he might have spent amount substantiaily cn his attendant and diet for his speedy' reco^ry. . it is a matter of common knowiedge that substantia! amount is required to be spent on the treatment for his speedy recovery, -9. The compensation of Rs.2S,250/- awarded by the Tribunal v^hen examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in my opinion, is somewhat on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent 10. Considering aii the reievant factors jnc!uding the number and nature of the injuries sustained by the ciaimant in the motor accident and the amount he must have spent on his treatment, I -arn of consideratlon that llirther award of Rs.11',OOCy- Inciusive of interest component and under the heads 'expenses incurred on attendant and special di^f would make the compensatlon of Rs.26,25Q/n- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe case. A ~"^... ;'^, '^. ^i {€M'^^^ '^ a .1 J/y •^fe&^ 11. The appeai fiied by the appeii.ant/ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation is, therefore, aiiowed in part. The appeliant/ciaimant Is awarded further sum of Rs.11,000/- inclusive of interest component and under the heads 'expenses incurrent on attendant and special diet^ In addition to sum of Rs.25,250/- awarded bythe Tribuna!. 12, Respondent No.3 / insurance company is granted tyvo months' time for depositing the sum of Rs.11,000/- before the concerning CSaims TribunaL No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge L