/? ^ y Claimant Pitambar Sao, a.qe 30 yrs, s/o Chamra Sao R/o Tatibandh Basti, P.S. Amanaka, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. iaipurC.G. Non-applicants 2. Umakant Pradhan, occupation driver Through Guif Automobiles, Padmapur Road,. Saraipali, distt. Mahasamund C.G. Goldal Khan (Owner), through Gulf Automobiles, Padmapur Road, Saraipali, distt. Mahasamund C.G. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisiona! Manager Division Officer Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur C.G. Present: Shri A.L. Singraul, counsel for the appelfants. Shri G.V.K. Rao, counsel on behalf of Shri Q. Aziz, counsel for respondent No.3. >rd The following order of the Court was passed s-1 ^ y/ Appellant - Pitambar Sao is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal; Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26.11.2005, passed in Ciaim Case No.52/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 27.07.2003, the Tribunal -awarded a total sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tilP the date of actuai payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Pitambar Sao sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident on 27.07.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Van bearlna reaistration No. C.G.06-A/1584; as the above offending vehicle Maruti Van on the date of the accident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions,.the Insurance Company was liabie to pay compensation to the ciaimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeai against the award, the above findings rec'orded by the Tribunal have now attained finalitv. E- s%. ''%-. ^ 5) The Tribunai considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accldent and the amount proved to have been spent on his treatment, awarded lump-sum of Rs.35,000/- 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.35,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actua! payment. 6) Shri A.L. Singraul, leamed counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not ac6epting the disability certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal and in awarding low compensation of Rs.35,000/- only. 7) Shri G.V.K. Rao, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri Q. Aziz, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Nationa! Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the disability certificate produced by the clalmant before the Tribunal was issued by the Doctor after two years of the accident, the same has been rightly discarded by the Tribunal and the compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal i& just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Appellant Pitambar Sao was aaed about 30 vears on the date of the accident. Claimant claimed that he was serving in Apex Ricemiil, Basna and was also earning as Carpenter. He claimed income of Rs.3,000/- psr month from all the sources. The Tribunal y found that the claimant sustalned multiple serious injuries includlng fracture of his left leg in the motor accident. The disabitity certiflcate produced by the ciaimant before the Tribunal, in our opinion, has been rightly discarded by the Tribunal as the same was obtained after two years of the accident. The Doctor who has issued the said certificate admittedty never treated the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. Nevertheless, it is a matter of common knowledge that substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractyres. The claimant on account of the injuries and the fracture in his Isft leg cpuld not have performed his duties for a period of about 3-4 months, resulting in monitory loss to him. The claimant must have suffered physically and mentally on account of the fracture on his left teg for a period about 4-6 mont.hs. 9) The compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above-mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainiy on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 10) Considering al! the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and cireumstances of the present case. padma 11) The appeal fited by the appeIlanV claimant of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.20,000/- inclusive on the enhanced amount of compensation in interest component dition to the sum of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunai. 12) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited. is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.20,000/- before the concernina Claims Tribunal. 13) No order as to costs. Chief Justice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge