-*!..<«<' y-\'^ ss^yr UiiffiN'3l3rii).l ^EBl'S^'3''*'"''""''1"''' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A. No.998 of 2003 APPELLANT CIaimant RESPONDENTS Vishnu Ram Versus Yashwant and others. ORDER For Pronouncement of Order ^o .12.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^.12.2010 HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPU^ SINGLEBENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, J. IVIisc. Appeal No. 998 of 2003 APPELLANT Claimant RESPONDENTS Vishnu Ram, aged 40 years, S/o Sirju Ram, resident of village Chhati, Tah. & Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Yashwant, aged 27 years, S/o Rajendra Chatwani. 2. Smt. Kamala Devi, W/o B. Chatwani. Both residents of Tulsi Bhawan, Jail Road, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Raipur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988 Appearance: Shri Ram KumarTiwari, counsel for the appellant. Shri Yogesh Chandra, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri Abhishek Sinha with Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon \e_.12.2010) This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensation awarded by Motor Aocidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'Claims Tribunal') in claim case No. 521/2002 vide order dated 23.07.2003 whereby the Tribunal awarded Rs.69,100/- as total compensation in an injury case. 2. Appellant / Claimant - Vishnu Ram claimed compensation of Rs.10,71,500/- by filing a claim petition under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the motoraccident on 12.10.2001 when he was crossing over the road along with cycle, at the same time, Maruti Suzukj Car bearing No. M.P. 23 L 9425, being driven by its driver / respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent n w jfet manner, dashed theappellant, as a result ofwhich, the appellant fell down and received serious injuries including fracture on right leg. The claimant pleaded that he was admitted in Dhamtari Hospital and thereafter he was admitted in Kurud Hospital for treatment. The claimant further pleaded that as a result of injuries he was permanently disabled and was unable to perform his duties. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident he was aged 40years and was working as Hamali in a Provision Stores and was earning Rs. 3000/- per month. 3. The owner of the offending vehicle - Maruti Suzuki Car contesting the claim denied all the averments made by the appellant. It was pleaded that accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the appellant and not on the part of driver of offending vehicle. The insurer of the offending vehicle - Marui Suzuki Car contested the claim and denied its liability to paycompensation to the claimarit on the plea that the driver of offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence and the saidoffending vehicle was being pljed in breach ofthe policy conditions. 4. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it held that the claim'ant - Vishnu Ram sustained injuries including fracture on his right leg on 12.10.2001 due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle. It was also held that as the offending vehicle was insured on the date of the accident with the insurance company, the insurance company i.e. the United India Insurance Company was also liableto pay compensation to the olaimant. 5. Learned counsel forthe appellant vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal ought to have fixed the income of the appellant at Rs.3000/-. He furtherargued that as there was no rebuttal from the side of respondents, the evidence of the appellant cannot be discarded by the Tribunal: The Tribunal has further erred in not considering the medical certificate giveri by doctor. The Tribunal has lost sight of medical expenses incurred by the appellant during his treatment. On these premises, he urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal may be suitably enhanced. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued in support of the impugned order and argued that after appreciating the evidence on record, the learned Tribunal has awarded just and proper compensation. 7. A.W.1 Vishnu has stated that he was admitted in Dhamtari Hospital whereconcerned doctor demanded Rs.25000/- and due to his poverty he could not deposit such huge amount and thereafter for better treatment he went to Kurud Hospital where Dr. Pandey admitted him for a period of 21 days for treatment and plastered on his leg. Dr. Pandey also advised him foroperation but according to him hewas not in a position to operate his leg at Raipur because of poverty and due to that he was permanently disabled. Dr. Pandey hasalso issued a certificate in that regard and the same is exhibited as Ex.P.9 wherein itwas mentioned that the appellant sustained 40% permanent disability. According to him, he was earning Rs.3000/- per month by measuring paddy. In cross-examination, he has stated that he gets Rs.30/- - Rs.40/- as daily wages by doing Hamali'iob. A.W.2 Dr. V.K.Pandey has deposed in his evidence that he has examined the appellant, who was admitted in his Hospital. The appellant sustained fracture on his right leg and in this regard he issued certificate of permanent disability showing to the extent of 40%. He admitted that Kurud Hospital is a Government Hospital and he has only plastered the leg but not operated. He has also stated that some medicines were prescribed by him to the appellant during his treatment. He also stated that Ex.P.20 is a medical prescription which is not prescribed by him. Medicines prescribed in Ex.P.20 are only for removing pain and for cough. 8. Having thus discussed the evidence as above, it is clear that the appellant sustained injuries including fracture on his right leg and for that when he admitted in Dhamtari Hospital, the concerned doctor demanded an amount of Rs.25,000/- for treatment of his leg and as he was not in a position to pay such huge amount he was admitted inKurud Hospital where Dr. Pandey plastered on his leg and prescribed some medicines but did not operate the appellant's leg and issued a certificate of permanent disability showing that the appellant sustained 40% permanent disability. 9. As regards the income of the appellant, although there was no clinching evidence on record regarding income of the appellant but the Tribunal after holding that the appellant must be working for 26 days outaf^ tlt month fixed income of the appellant at Rs.50/- per day, Rs.1300/- per month and Rs.15.600/- per year. Taking note of the fact that theappellant Sustained 40% permanent disability, the Tribunal fixed the total loss of income at Rs.6240/- perannum. By applying multiplier of 10on the said income i.e. Rs.6240/-, an amount of Rs.62,400/- was worked out by the Tribunal. Accepting the medical bills produced by theappellant, the Tribunal fixed Rs.5687/- towards expenses incurred during treatment. By adding Rs.1013/- towards pain, suffering and mental agony, the Tribunal assessed the total compensation as Rs.69,100/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the motor accident. The Tribunal directed the respondents to pay compensation amount of Rs.69,100/- jointly and severally, along with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization. 10. Having considered thefacts and circumstances ofthe case, in view of the injuries including fracture sustained by the claimant, his hospitalization and the fact that the appellant would definitely have suffered a lot of pain and mental agony due to injuries and fracture caused in the motor accident and also looking to the above broad features of the case, in my considered opinion, a further award of Rs.15000/- inclusive of interestcomponent would make the compensation just and proper in the present facts and circumstances of the case. 11. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.69,100/- awarded to the appellant by the Tribunal is enhanced by Rs.15,000/- more, inclusiv'e of interest component, which makes the total compensation as Rs.84,000/-. 12, The United India Insurance Company Limited / respondent No.3 is granted 3 months time to deposit the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.15000/- with the concerned Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge