^ Appellant Claimant HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: HON'BLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR.. J Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 1321 of 2007 Ashok Kumar s/o. Ramswaroop 35 years r/o. Khadakghat, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG). Respondents Versus Shri Aslam Agadi s/o. late Abdul Habib and two others. -4.^ POST FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER Sd/- JUDGE~ ^7 -9-2012 Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge < " ^r c.. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR (SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rangnath Chandrakar) Misc. Appeal (ClNo. 1321 of 2007 Appellant/ Applicant Respondents Non-respondents Vs. 1. 2. 3. Ashok Kumar, s/o. Ramswaroop, 35 years, r/o. Khadakghat, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG). Aslam Agadi, s/o. late Abdul Habib, 40 years, r/o. Panarapara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG). Bajrangi Lal Umarvanshi, s/o. Namonarayan, r/o. Shivmandir Ward Jagdalpur. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited through Branch Manager, Sadar Bazar Ward Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG). ' (Appeal underSection 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act, 1988) Present: Mr. Keshav Dewangan and Shri Mayank Chandrakar, counsel for the appeilant. Mr. G.S. Patel, counsel for respondent No.3. None for respondents No. 1 and 2 though served ORDER (Passedon2.7 9-2012) 1. By this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, "the Act 1988"), the appellant seeks enhancement of compensation awarded by 2 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short, "the Tribunal"), vide award dated 29-6-2007 passed in Claim Case Nos. 83/2007. 2. Brief facts of the case are^that the appellant was working as a cleaner in the yehjcle Tata 407 bearing registration No. CG 17 ZB 0323. On 28-7- ^ 2,005 this yehicle owfted'fcy respondent No.2, driven by respondent No.1 ;c and insured with respondent No.3 was going to Karpavand weeklymarket. When this vehicle reached near Devdabhata Chowk, Sargipai, the driver of the vehicle i.e.. respondent No.2 who was driving the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner turned it suddenly and lost control over the vehicle due to which the vehicle turned turtle down. Due to the aforesaid accident the appellant/claimant sustained injuries including fracture in his right shoulder. He was admitted in the hospital where operation was conducted and steel plates were inserted in his leftfeet. 3. The appetlant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28-7-2005, claiming a compensation of Rs.10,80,000/- stating that he sustained injuries including fracture due to rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2 of the offending vehicle. It is submitted that he had suffered permanent disablement and due to the disability he is unable to perform any work. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 owner and driver of the offending vehicle filed their reply before the Tribunal stating that at the time of accident the offending vehicle was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., i.e, respondent No.3, therefore, the liability would be fastened on respondent No..3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited/respondent No.3 also filed its reply and cpntended that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving license. Thus, there was a breach of policy condition therefore.prayed for its exoneration. 5. The learned Tribunal, on a ciose scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofvehicle Tata 0323 by its driyer - Aslam Aghadi i.e., respondent No.1 as a result of which the appellant/claimant sustained multiple injuries inciuding ,fractures in the saidaccident; at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid and effective driving licence, \ c there was a breach of policy condition; respondents 1 and 2 driver and owner were held liable for payment of compensation. The Tribunal assessed and awarded a total sums of Rs.70,000/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe application till the date of actual payment . 6. Shri Keshav Dewangan and Shri Mayank Chandrakar learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in not appreciating the evidence in its proper perspective. Leamed counsei further submits that the appellant has suffered 55% disablement and the evidence on record shows that the appellant is unable to do even his routine daily works. The Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of earning, loss of amenities of life, special diet and attendant and has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs. 70,000/- which deserves to be enhanced suitably. 7. Per contra, Mr. G.S. Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.S/Oriental Insurance Company Limited supporting the impugned award passed by the Tribunal submits that at the time of accident the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a vaiid and effective driving licence and thus he committed breach of policy condition. The Tribunal considering all the facts has rightly fastened the liability upon the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and record ofthe tribunal. 9. After considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant/appellant in the motor accident and the / . amount proved.to have been spent on treatment, the Tribunal awarded the aforesaid amount as compensation to the claimant. Claimant/appellant was aged about 35 years on the date of accident and did not receive satary for the period of treatment due to accident, therefore, admittedly there must have been loss of salary. The appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture in the motor accident is borne out from the evidence available on record. It is a common knowledge that substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of grievous injuries sustained by him. The tribunal has certainly erred in not awarding any sum towards loss of earning, loss of amenities of life, special diet and attendant. 10. The compensation of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in my opinion, is certainly on the lower side which deserves to be enhanced suitably. 11 .Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, l am of the considered opinion that further award of Rs.15,000/- (towards loss of earning, loss of amenities of life, special diet and attendant) to the appellant/claimant inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. Accordingly, the appeal filed by.the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation is partly allowed. The appellant/claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.15,000/- inclusiveof interest component in addition to the sum of Rs.70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Respondents No. 1 and 2/ bwner and driver of the offending vehicle are granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.15,000/- before the concerning claims Tribunal. 14. No order as to costs. i Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Raju Y,