HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc.Aooeal (ClNo. 1179 of 2009 SB: Hosa^ble Shri Jisstice R.L. Jhaawar APPELLANT Dharmendra Sharoia / • RBSPONDENTS Versus Pardeshi Rain Ayami aad 2 others. ORDBR Post for order on <23^2.20 U Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^.2.2011 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BBNCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal (CS No. 1179 of 2009 APPELLANT CIaimaat RBSPONDBNTS Nou- Claimaats Dhannendra Shai-ma s/o Tejbahadur Sharma, aged about 32 years, R/o Sharma Fabricators Gogaon, Post Sarora, Thaaa Khaxutarai, Tahsit and , Distdct Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1 Pardeshi Ram Ayami S/o Jogaraxa Ayaaii, Occupation : vehicle Driver, R/o behiad village RoUing MiBs, Talab Pai', Sanclongad, Thaaa Aainaaaka, Raipxir, Tahsil aad District Raipur (CG) 2 Snxt. Devaki Bai Ayami w/o Jogaraoi Ayaiai, occupation Parshad, R/o behiiid viflage Roltmg MiUs, Talab Par, Saadongari, Thaaa Aamanaka, Raipur, Tahsil aiid District Raipur (CG) 3 I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insuraace Conipaiiy Limited, Through Branch Maaager, Braach Office: Third Ploor, Lalgaaga Shopmg Maal, GE Road, Raipur, Talisil aad District Raipur (CG) MISCBLLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SBCTIOH 173 OF THB MOTORVBHICLES ACT, 1988 Appearaace: ShriA.L. Siaghraul, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No. 1 aad 2. Shri Amrito Das, counsel for respoudent No.3, 'y^' '^ i' ^S^ 1, ^ . y <y 'i^^:.y RoL.Jhaawar, J ORDBR (2^.2.2011) AppeUant-Dhannendra is seeking enhancenient of fhe conipensation awarded by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claiois Tribunal Raipzir (for short <fhe Tribunal') vide award dated 20.1.2009, passed in Claiai Case No.30/2008. 2, As against the conipensation of Rs.15,50,000/-, claiined by fhe appeUaiit/claiinant by flling a clausi petitiou uuder Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for tlie iajziries sustained by him ia the motor accident on 15.1,2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,09,343/- as conipensation to tih.e clamiant along wifh iaterest @ 6 % p.a. froni tbe date of filiag of the claiin petition tiU the date of actual payraent. 3, The Tribunal on a close scrutmy of fhe entire evidence led beforc it held ftiat fhe claimant sustabied xiiultiple nyunes m. fhe inotor accident on 15.1.2008; fhe accident occurred due to rash and negUgent driviag of tiie driver of fhe offending vehicle ~ Maniti Vaa beanng registration No. CG 04/B/9340; as fhe ofFending vehicle vaa on fhe date of fhe accident was insured with fhe I.C.I.C.I. LoBibard General Insuraace Conipany Liinited, fhe Insuraace Coinpaay was Uable to pay conipensation to fh.e clamiaiit. 4. As the respondents have not filed aiiy appeal against fhe award, fhe above fiaduigs recorded by fhe Tribuual have now attaiaed fiB.aUty. 5. The Tribunal consideriag the nxiinber aad nature of iiijuries proved to have been sustaiaed by tiie claimaiit io. the niotor accident aiid fhe ainount proved to have been spent on his treatment, awarded Rs.46,343/- towards inedical expenses; Rs.2,000/- for special diet, Rs.1000/- for attendant, Rs.1000/- for conveyajo.ee, Rs.9,000/- for loss of mcome for 3 months, after considenng 28% disability awarded Rs.35,000/- for futiire loss of eaming aad Rs.15,000/- for pam aad suffermgs. The Tribunal, fhus awarded a total sum ofRs. 1,09,343/- as compensation to fhe claimant. The Tribunal further directed payinent of iaterest on tlie above aniount of conipensation @ 6 % per aanura froin fhe date of flliag of the claim petition tUl the date of actual payraent. 6, Leanied counsel for flie appeUaat argued fhat Tribuiial has awarded less conipensatiou and has not seen the injuries properly, due to which, fhe appeUaiit had suffered for inore than 3 laonths. Even after cousideruig 28 % disabiUty, the Tribunal has awarded loss of incoine ou lower side; fherefore, fhe amount of conipensation should be enhaaced. 7. On fhe ofher haad, leamed counsel for respondent No. 3/ I.C.I,C.I, Loinbard General Insuraace Coinpaiiy Limited supported fhe award aad contended that fhe compensation of Rs.1,09,343/- awarded by fhe Tribunal is just aad proper compensation m tiie facts aiid circumstaaces offhe preseut case. 8. After considering ttie facts aad circunistances of fhe case and the documents available on record, it is clear fhat the claimaiit/appellaat was aged about 32 years on the date of accident, He was workuig wifh his brother aad was eamitig Rs.3,000/- per month. After sustaiiiuig fracture in his left leg and 30 % disabUity, certainly he was not able to do work for long tfcme, as one rod was io.serted ia his leg during operation, as beforc fhe accident he was douig, fhe iajuries were serious ia nature. ^,;.^. 1<S\-^ 9. On due consideration offhe subiaissions oflearaed counsel for fhe pailies and atl relevant factors, iacluding fhe above broad features of fhe case, I am of the opiaion fhat further award of Rs.15,000/- inclusive of mterest component on fhe enhaaced amouut of coinpensation would niake fhe coinpensatioii of Rs.1,09,343/- awarded by tib.e Tribunal as just and proper compensation in fhe facts aad circumstaiices ofthe present case. 10. The appeal filed by fhe appellaat/claiaiant for enhaaceinerit of fhe conipensatiou, therefore, is aUowed ia part. The appeltan.t/clanxiaiit is awarded furfher sum of Rs.15,000/- niclusive of uiterest cooiponent on the enhaaced aaiount of coiDLpensation, ia additiou to tiie suin ofRs. 1,09,343/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Respondent No, 3- I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General Insuraace Conxpany Limited is graated fhree nionths' tmie for deposittag ftie sum ofRs,15,000/- before fhe conceming Claims Tribunal. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jbanwar Judge