HIGH COURTOFCHMATTISGARHATBILASPUR DIV1S16NBENCH COR^: HON'BLESI^ R^^EVGUPT^ C^. HON'BLE^I-tRISiBNU.KUiylARSINHA.J. Misc.JtoDealNb. 207 Of 2003 ADDellants 1. Parasram, S/o Neetkanth Dewangan, aged about 45 years, 2. Milochani Baf, W/o Parafsram Etewangan, aged about 40 years, Both are R/o Vill. Nagri, Tah. Nagri, Distt.E3tiamtan(C.G.) VEKSUS ::- • • l.:. Resbondents Mahesh, S/o^SG|iraj||ffliri,IsQe£t{about 35 yeiars, RA) Sankra,?"l'ah%Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari(C.G.) l^ri Bai Wo CtihQgalal .Jain, R/o Sankra, Tah. Nagri, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) \ The Qnentaf Insurance Cornpany Ltd., Mandal Kar^lay, Shyam Mariwt Pandri, Raipur (C.G.) IVIiscellane6usADeiBalUflClerSeGti6n173of Motor^VelireleAct 1 Present Shn AwadhIlripE^i andShri Vjkas Pi^han^^OT^ fprthe appeltants. ShriPrMBant<Jaiygswal,SeniQrCouns®lwith Shri NeerajPradl^n,<»unselfi^resRondentNo^ QRDER •ih {07tnQecemt»r,2010) ^tl- -^- : s ^ l6 The fbtlowing oreler of V\e Court was passect by RajeevGupta,C.J. The unfbrtunate parents of deceased Budhesh Budheshwar are seelang enhancement of the eompensation awfafded by the Addition^ Motbr Accident Claims Trtbunal, Dhamtari (fbr short the Trifaunal') vide award datwi 09.09.2002, passedinClaimCaseNo.73/2)02. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,%,QCX)/- claimed by the appeItants/claimanls,unfbrtunateparentsofdeceEU5edBudhesh@ Budheshwar by filing a ctaim pefition under Seetion ?166 of the Motor \fehicles Act fbr his death pn 28.0Z.1^9 on aciount of the i^uriessustainedbyhiminthemotorawiaeTft 61^21^^998, the Tribunat awareled a total sum of Rs.60,000ff^ GS|i|^^ along|v^irrteresfc@|§^%^e©annumft^thi||a^eo^ jeIaimj^l|oiffi^ {ttgMa<;eiof^^|Kpayrne^^^^^^^ 3) The Trilatirial ort ^a clo&^^(srutitiy of the entire evidenGe led before it held that claimants' son Budhesh @ Budhesliwar sustainedmultipleinjuriesinthemotoraccjdenton2l.01;t998; though Budhesh @ Budheshwar dfedon 28.07.1999, theclaimants could ndt establish thathe died on acGountoTthe injurite^sustanned by hirn^in the motor accidenton 21.01.1998; theacciaent occurred due to rash ahd negtjgent driving ofthe driver of the offendir^ vehusle Tata-Sumo bearing registration No.l'iAP-^-EffilOO; as the abovejoffending vehicle Tata-Sumo, on th^ ^ate oC th^ accldent '; '..i»a; .;,^ '. :_._. : •-.-.:,:',.'. ^^^•f::':':^:^':- - •i^^:: : .'y' ^. .j...i.i.:;i.: ^. waSir^rediwiththeOnei^llnsur^ceCoi^^RyAjmtte^ InsurantSe Compahy eould riot establiSili an|y|iBi-ea&ti ofjtt'te pollGy -^' .f;-; condttions, the tnsurance Company was liabte to pay compensation toflie claimants. 4) As the respondents have not filedany appeal against the award, the atlove findjng recorded by the Tribunal holding the insurer of the offchding vehicle Tata-Sumo liable to pay compen^ition to the elaimants has now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal holding that the claimants could not establish that their son Budhesh @ Budheshwar died on aceount of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 21 W.1998 considered the ctaim petition as ipjury case and awarded Rs.57,159/-towards medical expenses and Rs.2,841^ 1^^ pain and suffering. The Tribunal,thus, awaixleilfa te al|Sum of Rs.60,000/- as coropensation to the claimants. TjttJefTrifclinaljfurther direded^ayrnerttof^nteresloni^ ^|t§|6§|0(^^|8|^||^s^y( ^mte of'filing of Kie 6) ^ Shri A\A@dh Tnpathl aiid Shri Vik^ Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Tribunal has erred In holdirig that the claimants could not esteblish that their son cleceased Budhesh @ Budheshwar clied on account ofthe Injuri^ sustained by him inthemotoraccidenton 21.01.1998; andin awarcHng low eompengrtion ofRs.60,GOO/-only. 7) Shri Prashant Jayaswal, leamed Spnior Gpunsel with Shri Neeraj Pradhan, leamed cpunset for ijesponct^Tt No.3 the Orienta) Insuranc&Coinpany Limited, on the other hand supported the award and cootended^that the compenssrtion of Rs.60,000/- ....-^ '% /c ^ ill !aS8i5ife, s ".^ IJ ••'*ss-ef' '•s'l (^ awarded by the Tnbunal is just and proper compensation in the faetsandcircumstancesyofWepresentcase. 8) The unfortunate accident wherein the ctaimants' son Budhesh @ Budheshwar sustajned multiple injuri^ took place on 21.01.1998. The ctaimants'son Budhesh @ Budheshwar died on 28.07.1999 i.e. after more than 1 % yeare of the acciderit on 21.01.1998. Admittedly, the body of deceased Budhesh Budheshwar was not subjeeted to postmortem examination. The only doctor examinaj by the claimants befere the Tribunal, Dr.Subodh l-1iran, also ctid not state that the clainiants' son Budhesh @ Budheshwar dledon aeGountoTthe injuri^ sustained by him in the motor aceident. In his Gross-®<arninati6ri, he categorieally statwi that since he has not seen the^ostmortem report of Budhesh @ Budheshwar, he is not in a positiontb state his cause of^leath. The other eyidence^of AW-1 Parasram, father of deeeased BUdhesh @^ BucittesUwar, in our opinion, by itself is not sufRcient to establish that Budhesh @ Budheshvrar died on acGountofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor aGCident. 9) Considering all the relevaht aspects of the matter inctuding the time-gap 6f about 1 % years between the accident and the death of deceased Budhesh @ Budheshwar; the fact that the baly of dec6ased Budhesh @ Budheshwar was not subjetaed to postmottem examination, the fact that deceased Budhesh @ Budheshwar was discharged from tbe hospitatl after hfe treatment forsonFi^ime in ttie year 1998 itself^and the ^actthatjthere is no cogent and reliable evidence about the cause of death of deeeased „ fi'"* ?^ ,,:;!l«!i> ^ :-t.;% iS' ::? IS"! 1 ..s> subbu Budhesh @ Buclheshwar, we do npt find any infirmity in the finding reeorded by the Tribunal ttiatUieclaimants could not establlsh that deceased Budh^h @ Budheshwar died on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motpraccident. We, therefore, afflrm the above finding recorded'bythe Tribunal. 10) So far as the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunalfortheinjuriessustainedbytheclaimants'sonBudheshi Budheshwar in the motor accident, after his death the parents could have prosecutet the claim petition for lc»sof estate only, meaning thereby that the amount spent by them or by their son on the treatment. As the medical expen^ coulc) be^^^e^ the extent of Rs.57,159/- and the Tribunal has avvarded a sum of Rs.57,159^ towards medical expens^/we do nGt^ndainy^^^ fprenhaneementofth0eOmpensationawardedby^heTribunal. 11) The appeal ^fil»J by the appellants/claimants for enhat-iceiTierrt of ttie compen^ation, thSrefbre, is liabte to be dismissed and is tiereby dismissed. 12) No orderasto costs. Sd/- l ChiefJiistke '' \ Sd/- . " v Suni! Kuniar Sinha \ Judge i !|E:.!!M