CORAM: <9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Appellant Claimant Respondents ‘ 1 Misc. Appeal No.494 of 2005 Bhairav Pradhan S/o Dhoba Pradhan, aged 5O years, by caste — Uriya, Rio Darrabhatha, Post SAripali, Distt ’ Mahasamund, Present R/o Bhathapara,‘ PS Ganj, District Raipur (CG) VERSUS Mitthulal, S/o Shivcharan, aged 42 years, R/o through Basant Tiwari, S/o Bhagwan Das Tiwari, near Rajimwale Dispensary, Lama Chowk, Post District Raipur (CG) Firoj Ahmad R/o 14/1, Saiyyad Shaile Lane, Calcutta and ABC Awadh Bangal ‘ Carriers United india Insurance Company Limited, Divisional office Tahsii & Distt Raipur NON-CLAIMANTS Miscellaneous Appeal under $ection 173 of Motor Vehicles Act v. Present : Shri MK Bhaduri, counsel forthe appellant. Shri GS Patei, counsel on behalf of Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (29m April, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellant/ claimant Bhairav Pradhan is seeking enhancement of§the compensation awarded by the 11th Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short the Tribunai’) vide awaid dated 15032005, passed in Claim Case No.29/2004'. 2)} As against the compensation of Rs.4,05,000I-, ciaimed by the appeiiant/olaimant, >by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor We} acc‘id‘ent on 24.10.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) K The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led I before it held that claimant Bhairav Pradhan sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 24.10.2000; the injuries and the fractures sustained by the claimant in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 85%; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the. driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.WB-3-A-9678; as the above offending vehicle‘Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the United lndia insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed-any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. (29 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident a'nd the amount proved to have been spent on treatment? awarded Rs.40,000/- towards loss in the future earning capacity on account of the permanent disability; Rs.80,000/- towards medical expenses; and Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the iniuries sustained by him’in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.75,000 a @ 6% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till thedate of actual payment. 6) Shri MK Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred .in awarding low compensation of Rs.75,000/- only, though the claimant on account of the injuries, fractures and resultant disability has been rendered unfit to pursue his occupation as labour. 7) Shri GS Patel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of‘ Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Claimant Bhairav Pradhan was aged about 50 years on the date of the accident. He was a labour by occupation. The claimant sustained multiple fractures in the motor accident is established from the evidence of AW3 Dr. A.S. Saifi. It is a matter of common ‘ knowiedge that substantiai amount is required to be spent on i treatment of fractures The ctaimant, a tabour by occuoation, could .t not have performed his duties as labour on account of the muitiple i fractures sustained by him in the motor accident for a period of 4 to 6 months resulting in monitory Ioss to him. The Tribunal has certainly i fallen into error in not awarding any sum towards loss of income ‘ “during the period of treatment; attendant; conveyance and special diet. 9)‘ The compensation of Rs.75,000/— awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 10) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that, further award of Rs.25,000/— inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.75,000/— awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the G present case. 11) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.25,000/— inclusive of interest componenLon the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.75,000/— awarded by the Tribunal. \ 12) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.25,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunai. / _ , . 13) No order asto costs. sdl- /'/sdl- . ,1? sun‘i\Kuma\' 5‘“ha ,7 Chief Justice Judge i/ ’