HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C J HON BLE SHRI SUNIL KUIVIAR SINHA J Appeliant Claimant Misc. Appeal No. 352 Gf 2005 1Ajay Kumar Rathore, Slo Pyarelal Rathore, Aged about 27 years Permanent R/o Chindpur, Post Bhiiai Bazar, Tehsi! Khatghora, District Korba (CG) Present Address : Ramayan Chowk, Chatidih, Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS Ramkrishna, S/o Moolchand Dhobi, Aged about. 27 years, Driver, R/o Vitlage Burnapas, Pantora, Thana Janjgir, District Janjgir —- Champa (CG) Sanjay Kumar, S/o Panch Ram Rathore, Aged about 30 years, R/o Viiiage & Post Mudaii Via Hardi Bazar, Chowki Hardi Bazar, Tehsil Khatghora, District Korba (CG) The New india insurance Co. Ltd. Through Manager, RTA Buiiding, Bajrang Market, GE Road, Raipur (CG) Respondents Present : Shn SRJ Jaiswai counsel for the appellant Shrl Shailendra Sharma counsel on behalf of Shn Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Counsel for respondent No.3. e/ t Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act 1988 ORDER (18* February, 2011) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by E Rajeev Gupta, C.J‘ V AppenantAjay Kumar Rathore is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 10‘“ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Biiaspur (for short the Tribunai’) vide award dated 28.02.2005, passed in Ciaim Case No.72/2004. w . 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,0D,OOO/— claimed 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 16.09.2002; the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,43,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the 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 that claimant Ajay Kumar Rathore sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture of his right hand and total damage of his left eye; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle tractor-trolley bearing registration No.CG-10-A/175O and CG—10-A/7544 respectively; as the above offending vehicie tractor-trolley on the date of the accident was insured‘with the New India insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company could not establish \ 3% any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance Company was iiable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeai against the award, the above findinge recorded by the Tribunal have now j 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 resultant permanent disability and the amount 1 prOved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.90.0GOI- towards pecuniary loss on account of the permanent disability; Rsi80,000/- ‘towards medical expenses, special diet and conveyance; Rs.50,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss on account of i the permanent disability; Rs20,000f— towards pain and suffering; and Rs.3,000/— for loss of income during the period of treatment. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.2,43,000/- 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.2,43,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri SRJ Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards the disfiguration of the appellant’s face on account of the loss of his left eye~\and in awarding low compensatiOn of Rs.2,43,000/- only. #W @ 7) Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsei appearing on behalf of Shri Erashant JayaswaL Senior counsel for respondent No.3 the New India insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the {a‘ward and contended that as the loss of left eye of the claimant has not in any manner adversely affected the future earning jcapacity of the appellant, the compensation of Rs.2,43,00D/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and clrcumstances’of the present case. 8) Claimant Ajay Kumar Rathore was aged about 27 years on the date of the accident. According to the claimant, he used to earn Rs.10,00Q/- per month from his Hardware business. The t claimant sustained multiple injuries in the motor accident has been found proved by the Tribunal. He sustained fracture of his right hand and total loss of vision in his left eye. lt is apparent from the records that on account of the injuries on his face, eye and nose, the claimant suffered disfiguration of hisface. The claimant on account of loss of his left eye, would suffer mentally and physically for whole of his remaining life. 9) The compensation of Rs.2,43,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is somewhat on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 10) Considering allthe relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that furthertaward of Rs.25,000/— inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.2,43,000/— awarded by the Tribunal as just l l @ and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) The appea! fited by the appellant/claimant for enhancement ‘ of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The ciaimant is awarded further sum of Rs.25,000[- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation, in addition to the sum of Rs.2,43,000/— awarded by the Tribunal. 12) Respondent No.3 'the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.25,DOO/- before the concerning Claims Tribunai. 13) No order as to costs. //»"""/K/ Sap ‘ Sdl- Suni\ Kumar Chief Justice Judge (/1 Sinha