^'^. "''^ 'K^ '!?-.-«^ /. -'!•?-. ^•"...<s2 HIGH GOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C-». HON'BLE SHRl SUNIL KUMAR S1NHA. J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-aoDlicants (Driver) (Owner) (Insurer) Misc. Aop^lNo. 478 of 2006 Sanjay Kumar Pandey, aged about 38 years s/o Shri Raghvendra Pandey r/o Shaktinagar, near Nagpur Naka, tah. & distt. Rajnandgaon C.G. Versus 1 Bhole Shankar ^ed about 27year, s/o Shri Anurudh Prasad Shukla, r/oBhanpuri, P.S. Lalbag.djst. Rajnandgaon C.G. 2 NarendraSharma, aged about® years s/b Shri Ramlal Shanrta R/o Tumdlbod, tah. & dist. Rajnandgaon C.G. 3 National Insurance Company Ltd. through Branch Manager, Branch Offlee, temptee Line, Rajnandgaon Mjsc. ADoealunderSection173oftheMolCT¥elucteAct Present : Shri Anand Shukla, counsel fortheappellant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, Gounset for respondent No.3. ORDER (20t"September,2011) The foltowing order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta,C.J. Appellant / Claimant Sanjay Kumar Pandey is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor AcGtdent Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short the Tnbunal') vide award dated 27.10.20)5, passedin Claim Case No.198/2002. u M.A.No.479of2036 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,70,000/-, claimed by the appellant/ctaimant, by filinga claim petition under S^ion 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act, for the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident on 17.04.2002, the Tribunal awarded a totalsum of Rs.52,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% F»Fannum from the date of filing of the claim petitlon till the date of actuat payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutinyof the entireevidence ted before it held the National tnsurance CompanyLimited, theiRSurer of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.MP-24 GC/0065 liable to paytheGompensationtothe claimant. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Jeep has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuriesproved to have beensustained bythe elaimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatmerrt, awarded Rs.30,000/- towards permanent disability suffered by the claimantonaccount of the injuries sustained byhim In the motor accident; Rs.17,000/- towards medical expenses; and Rs.5,000/- fbr pain ahd suffering and special diet. The Tribunal; thus, awarded atotalsum of Rs.52,0(X)/- as compensation tolhe ctatmant 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.52,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of Tningof the claim petitlon till the date of actual payment_ M.A.No.479 of 2006'• i 6) Shri Anand Shukla, learned eounsel fbr the a^eltant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards loss of income / loss of leave durlng the perlod of treatment; and in awardinglowcompensation of Rs.52,000/-only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Jeep on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the fgcts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Claimant Sanjay Kumar Pandeyw^ aged about 38 years on the date ofthe accident. He was working as Agricutture E)dension Offlcer, drawing salary of about Rs.7,OCX)/- per month. The claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor a;cident is borne out from the evidence avaitable on re<x>rd. Theclaimant, beingingovernmentservice,inalllikelihood;themediGalexpenses incurred by him must have been reimburseEl by the State Government. There is no material available In the Tribunal's records to indicate that the claimant on account of the Injuries sustained by him in the motor accident either was removed from the service or was demoted or was denied any promotfon which was due to him. Assuch, it is apparent that the ctaimant did not ^-suffer any loss in his future eaming capacity on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accldent. 9) The Tribunat certainly has erred in not awarding any sum towards loss of income/ loss of leave during the period of 4 M.A.No.479of2006 t treatment. The claimant has categorically stated that he was compelled to take leave fora periodof 2 % months on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 10) The compensation of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Trtbunal, when examined in the contexlof the above menttoned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is on the lower side and deserves to beenhanced suitably. 11) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinlon that further award of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of component on the enhanced amount of compensation wouM make the compensationof Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and propercompensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12) The appeal flled by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compenMtion, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum ofRs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amountofcompensatton inadditiontothesum of Rs.52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance CcMnpany is granted three months' time for depositlng the total sum of Rs.20,(X30/- before the conceming Claims Tribunal. 14) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma