/r\^ 8 ^:€^y^^3 ^-^^ ^p HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DMSIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellant Respondents Misc. Appeal (0 No. 325 of 2007 Bhanupratap Singh Thakur s/o Shri Rambali Singh Thakur, aged about 23 years, r/o village post Sonpur, via. Sankara, tahsil Kashdol, district Raipur C.G. VERSUS 1 Rajeshwar Rai Yadav, s/o Motilal Yadav, aged 42 years, resident Bali Hawada near Onkar Pump, Balam Bazar, Hawada, Culcutta W.B. through Bihari Dhaba Basna, tahsil Basna, district Mahasamund C.G. 2 Amit Kumar Jaiswal son of Harinarayan Agrawal, aged about 45 years, resident of 72, Bireshwar Vandagi Marg Hawada, P.S. Baliya, district Hawada W.B. through Bihari Dhaba Basna, tahsil Basna, district Mahasamund C.G. 3 The New India Insurance Company Limited, Barik Bhawan Fourth Floor B.C.R. Avenue, Kolkata W.B. through Regional Office, Divisional Manager, the New India Insurance Company Limited, Kachahari Chowk, Madina Building, Raipur C.G. Memo ofappeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicIes Act. Present: Shri R. Pradhan, counsel for the appellant. Shri P, Dutta, counsel on behalf of Shri Shreekumar Agraw^l, Senior Counsel for respondent No.3. '^^ ^ ORDER (21st July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/ claimant Bhanupratap Singh Thakur is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.09.2006, passed in Claim Case No.10/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 10,50,000/- claimed by the appellanVclaimant, byfiling a claim petition under Sectiont166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 24.10.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,84,400/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% 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 the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.W.B.- 23A/6337 liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has a3ttained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering the number 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. 1,34,4007- towards loss in the future earning capacity on account of the disability; and Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses; special diet; attendant; and conveyance. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,84,400/- 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.1,84,400/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri R. Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,84,400/- only though the appellanVclaimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident and the resultant permanent disability to the extent of40%, has been rendered unfit to pursue his occupation as Tailor. 7) Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel-appearing on behalf of Shri Shreekumar Agrawal, learned Senior Cpunsel for respondent No.3, the New 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.1,84,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a mptor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the ^ft case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,84,400/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Claimant Bhanupratap Singh Thakur was aged about 23 years on the date of the accident. He was a Tailor by occupation. The claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident is established from the evidence ofAW-3 Dr.Giridhari Lal Chandrakar. The injuries and fractures sustained by the claimant in the motor accident led to amputation of his toe and one finger of right leg. The doctor certified the resultant permanent disability to the extent of 40% of right leg. 11) The Apex Court while considering the co-relation between the percentage of the permanent disability certified by the doctor about one limb of the body and the percentage of the loss in the future earning capacity, in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC - 343, observed in para 25: "25. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the permanent disabjlity of the injured claimant was45% and the loss of his future earning capacity was also 45%. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the^ disability certificate referred to 45% disability with reference to the left lower limb and not in recjard to the entire body. The said extent of permanent disability of the limb could not be considered to be the functional disability of the V body nor could it be assumed to result in a corresponding extent of loss of earning capacity, as the disability would not have prevented him from carrying on his avocation as a cheese vendor, though it might impede in his smooth functioning. Normally, the absence of clear and sufficient evidence would have necessitated remand of the case for further evidence on this aspect. However, instead of remanding the matter for a finding on this issue, at this distance of time after nearly two decades, on the facts and circumstances, to do complete justice, we propose to assess the permanent functional disability of the body as 25% and the loss offuture earning capacity as 20%.", 12) The compensation of Rs.1,34,400/- assessed by the Tribunal towards loss in the future earning capacity when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another (Supra), we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation. 13) Nevertheless, the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards pain and suffering and loss of income during the period of treatment. 14) In our considered opinion,a lump-sum of Rs.20,000/-inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensationof Rs.1,84,400/- awarded by the Tribunal as ju^t and proper compensation in the facts and +l circumstances ofthe present case. ^/ fi M t' ^^ ;^fr;"^ li -^ '] ^ ^^y ^ 15) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.1,84,400/- awarded by the Tribunal. 16) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.20,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 17) No order as to costs. __ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge subbu