IN THgniéivON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT Rn AgpuR (c.G.) M.A.(C)No. U? 0F2008 ‘APQELLANT Umashankar Rajput Son of Kunjlal CLAIMANT Rajput, aged about 22 years, Resident of Village Sawni, Police Station Patan, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS : g\ 1. Baliram Thakur Son of Chatur Thakur, aged about 35 years, Resident of Village Akhra, Police Station Patan, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). 2. Vivek Thakur Son of Suresh Thakur, Resident of Village Gujra, Tahsil Patan, Police Station Patan, District Durg (C.G.), Through: Smt. W Jaya Thakur Wife of Vivek Thakur, Teacher, Govt. Middle School Arasnara, Post Sevada, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (C.G.). MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 [w M“ Amount claimed before the Learned - Rs. 12,33,000/— Tribunal Amount awarded by the Learned — Rs. 97,900/— Claims Tribunal Amount claim before this Hon’ble - Rs. 2,00,000/- Court HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B!LASPUR M.A.C No. 155 of 2008 §APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACTI {SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aqarwal, J.) Present : Shri PP Sahu, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Santosh Yadu, Advocate for respondent No’ 1. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23.11.2011) 1‘ This is ciaimants’ appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Xlth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg (for short ‘the Tribunai’) in ciaim case No. 92/06 vide award dated 11.09.2007. 2. As against compensation of Rs. 12,33,000/— ciaimed by appellant/ciaimant by filing appiication before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘MV Act’) for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.04.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 97,900l- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Tractor bearing registration No. CG~O4—D-3313; appellant sustained multiple injuries in the said accident; APPELLANT Umashankar Rajput Claimant VERSUS RESPONDENTS Bamam Thakur & another sustained multip1e injuries in the said accident; assessed and awarded aforesaid amount of compensation in favour of claimant. Shri PP Sahu, learned counsei appearing forthe appeliant would submit: the Tribunal has erred in awarding low amount of compensation of Rs. 15,000/— on account of loss of income during treatments and in awarding Rs. 40,000/- on account of future loss of income though appellant sustained permanent disability to the extent of 20 percent, which deserves to be suitably enhanced. On the other hand, Shri Santosh Yadu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. ‘l would submit : looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation and does not call for any interference. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned including records of the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 17,900f— towards medical expenses on the basis of bills & vouchers produced by the appellant; Rs. 25,000/— towards pain and suffering, attendant and special diet; Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of income during treatment and Rs. 40,000/— towards permanent disability-future loss of income, and thus has awarded a total sum of Rs. 97,900/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident on 06.04.2004. To prove injuries and resultant loss, the appellantlclaimant examined Dr. V.S. Baghel as AW—4. Dr. Baghei is not a treating We (2/0 ”M doctor. As per his statement, 20 percent permanent disabiiity of the appellant is not of the whole body. 9. The Supreme Court in case of Raj Kumar v. Ajay Kumar and Another1 has held : the extent of disabitity of a limb (or part of body) expressed in terms of a percentage of the total functions of that Iimb, obviously cannot be assumed to be the extent of disability of the whole body. Where the claimant suffers a permanent disability as a result of injuries, the assessment of compensation under the head of loss of future earning would depend upon the effect and impact of such permanent disability on his earning capacity. The Tribunal should not mechanically apply the percentage of permanent disability as the percentage of economic loss or loss of earning capacity. What requires to be assessed by the Tribunal is the effect of the permanent disability on the earning capacity of the injured; and after assessing the loss of earning capacity in terms of a percentage of the income, it has to be quantified in terms of money, to arrive at the future loss of earnings 10. ln the instant case, 2O percent permanent disability is not of the whole body but was of part of the body. There is nothing in the evidence which could show appellant sustained any future loss of earning capacity on account of above disability. Further, the Tribunal has already awarded Rs. 55,000l- on account of loss of income during treatment and for future loss of earning capacity, i.e. for permanent disability. 12011 (1) SCC 343 11. When the matter is eXamined in the context of above broad features of the case and in the fact that the appellant has not sustained any loss of earning capacity due to above accident, in my considered opinion, there is no scope cf enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeai feiis and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. grit _ ‘5 K WW” iadgg