^' ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 422 of 2008 Appellant Claimant Kishan Kumar Sahu (mentally disturbed) s/o Govind Sahu age about 25 years, through his natural guardian Smt. Kamla Bai, r/o Ram Nagar, Sicola Bhatha, Durg, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsil and district Durg C.G. VERSUS Respondents Non-applicants ^- Pawan Sahu s/o late Faguram Sahu age about 35 years, r/o near Laxmi Naraysn Mandir Polsaypara, Durg, Tahsit and Distt. Durg C.G. (Driyer) T. Appa Rao, s/o T. Rama Rao, R/o B.M.Y. Charouda, Tahsil and distt. Durg C.G. (Owner) The National Insurance Co. Ltd. through Zonal Manager, Zone Office Akash Ganga Complex Supela Bhilai, Tahsil & distt. Durg C.G. (Insurance Company) Memo of apDeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the appellant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER >th (08tnJuly,2011) M\'^ .^"' "'^ '% £ i ^K. i ^. ^.L,>^''1'^.;; ^ ^ -^1^.. % y i-^yyt' The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. The appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.01.2007, passed in Claim Case No.20/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 19,00,0007- claimed by the appellanV 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 01.11.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.87,600/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the National Insurance Company, the insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No. CG-04/E-0420 liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal considering the number and nature ofthe injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on his treatment, awarded Rs.25,553.94 towards medical expenses; Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- for special diet; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.1,000/- for conveyance; and Rs.1,000/- for attendant. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.87,600/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor ^n.-^ 1—^ accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.87,600/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.87,600/- only though the claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident has become mentally retarded and is not in a position to pursue any occupation. 5) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded Rs.50,000/- towards future medical expenses without any evidence in that behalf. 6) Claimant Kishan Kumar Sahu was aged about 25 years on the date of the accident. The claimant sustained injuries in the motor accident is established from the evidence of AW-1 Dr. K. Thakur. The disability certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal remained unproved as the doctor who issued the said certificate was not examined before the Tribunal. The bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal were to the extent of Rs.25,553.94 and the Tribunal has awarded this entire amount towards medical expenses. 7) The compensation of Rs.87,600/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad padma features of the case, we are satisfied, does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 8) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation, liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 9) No order as to costs. —-——- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge