-^ 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 (C) No. 1022 of2007 Appellant : Kuleshwar Sahu, s/o Shukhlal Sahu, Claimant aged about 35 years, r/o Nahar Para Station Road, Raipur C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1. Vinod Singh, s/o Durga Prasad Non-applicants Singh, aged about 23 years, r/o Kanpa, Lodhi Para Raipur, tehsiland district Raipur, C.G. (Owner of vehicle Metador bearing Regd. No. C.G.04- G 4668) 2 The New India Insurance Company Limited, through its Divisional Manager, the New India tnsurance Company Limited, Jail road Raipur, tehsil and district Raipur C.G. (Insurer of vehicle Metador bearing Regd. No. C.G.04- G 4668) h/lemo pf appeal under Section 173 of the IVIotor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri Suresh Tandon, eounsel for the appellant. Shri Ashish Beck, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER rth (07InDecember,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. .A.C.No. 1022 of 2007 ?X) Appellant/ claimant Kuleshwar Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 14 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 10.05.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 162/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,70,000/- claimed by appellant/claimant Kuleshwar Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 03.10.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% 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 that claimant Kuleshwar Sahu sustained multiple serious injuries resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 30% in the motor accident involving Metador bearing registration No. C.G. 04/G 4668; as the above Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) The Tribunal considering the humber and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.1,62,000/- towards loss in the future earning capacity; Rs.17,003/- towards medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; and Rs.16,000/- towards loss of income during the period M.A.C.NO. 1022 of 2007 ^ of treatment. The Tribunal, thus, assessed the total compensation at Rs.2,00,003/-, which was rounded off to Rs.2,00,000/- and awarded to the claimant as compensation 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.2,00,0007- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of40%. 6) Shri Ashish Beck, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the New India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 7) Claimant Kuleshwar Sahu was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident. He himself was driving the Metador which dashed against a tree resulting in injuries to the claimant. The assessment of permanent disability of the claimant at 30% though it was certified to be 40% by the doctor, cannot be found fault with in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and Another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343. 8) The compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad M.A.C.No. 1022 of 2007 subbu features of the case, we are satisfied, cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 9) 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 is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice ) Sd/- T<.K. Agrawal Judge R;'ff"a