T^ ^- HIQH COURT OF CHHArriS©ARHAT BltASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV ©UPTA,CJ. HON'BLE SHRll^ANGNATH CHANDRftKAR, 4 MJSG Aopeal (0 No. 1121 of2010 ApDeMant Claimant Respondents Non-applicants h^ Ghhat Ram Kurrey s/o Dukhi Ram Kurrey, aged about 50 years, r/o 110 47, Dr. Rajendra Prasad N^ar, Phase {I, Kosabadj, {ahsll & distj©t KbrbaC.G. VERSUS Dinesh Kumar Paswan s/o Rsmn Lakhan Paswan, aged about 28 years, r/o Baiginclabhar, Rampur, Korba, t^isii & district Korba C.G. (Driver of the offending vehicle) Mansai Banjarey s/o B.R. Baijarey, aged about 55 years, r/o Qt. No.M/741, Chunehunj Colony, Kusmunda, tahall Katghora, djstrict Korba C.G. (Owner ofthe offending vediGle) IffcoTokiyoGeneral InsuranceCo. Ltd., through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Iffco Tokiw General Insurance Co. Ltd,3rd floor, 345-347, Lal Ganga Shopping Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur C.G. (Insurer oftheoffendingvehicfe) Mtscellaneous Appeal underSection 173 <rf MotorVehiclesAct Present : Shri P.K. Patel and Shri Govind 0®«angan»counset for the appeilant. Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, Gounselfor respendent No.3. QRDER (12tn October,2011) '—"1.1 '^ ..•¥ ^f MACNo.1121 of 2010 The following order of the Gourt v^s passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimanfs appeat for enhanGement of ttie compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor AcGident Clalms Tribunal, Korba (for short *the Tribunal') vlde award cfated 08.10.2010, passKlin Claim Case No.126/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.4,37,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant, by fillng a d^m petition under Seetlbn 166 of the Motor Vehteles Act, for the injuries sustainet by hkn In the motor accident on 22.08.2008, the Tribunal awardeda total SLNTI of Rs.37,000/- as compensation alongwtth interest @ 6% perannum from the date of flling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidenee led before it held the Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limfted, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. C.G.12D70953 tiable to pay the compensation to the claimanl. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Botero hs®not filed any appeal against the impugned award chatlengingtheabove finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now h^ ateined finality. 5) The Tribunat considering the number and natire of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the (^aimant in the motor accident and the amount pFoved to have beenspent on treatment, awarded Rs.34,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.3,000/- for ^^ MACNo.1121 Of 2010 pain and suffering. The Tribunat, thus, awarded atotal sum of Rs.37.000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injurtes sustained by him in the motor acddent. The Trtbunal further directed payment of Snterest on the above amount ofcompensation of Rs.37,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of thaclaim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri P.K. Patel and Shri Govind Dewangan, learneda>unset forthe appellant submittedthat the Tribunal has errect in awarding low Gompensation of Rs.37,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multipleserious injuries in the motor accident jncludlng fracture of his right leg. 7) Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Company Umited, the insurer ofthe offending vehicle Bolero on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensaUon in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Claimant Chhat Ram Kurrey was ^ed about 10 years on the date of theaccident. Me was working as teacher in a Goverrrment School. The claimant sustained multiple seriQus injuries including fracture in his right leg 1s bome out from theevideTOe ava'tlstole on record. It is a matter of common knowledge thM substantiat amount Is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. The claimant, on account of the fracture of his right leg must have remained bedrictalen at leastfor 2-3 months and ©Quldflot have attended his school during that period. The ctaimantt even iy, did ^ 4 MACNo.1121 of 2010 T^ not suffer any monetary loss during that pertod, he Gertainly suffered loss of teave whteh he was compelted to take durtng the period of his treatment. 9) The Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sunatowards loss of income/ loss of leave during ttte period of tr^tmert; conveyance; special diet; and attendant. 10) The compensation of Rs.37,000/- awarded bythe Tri^unal, when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is eertainly on the tower side and deservesto beenhancedsuitably. 11) Considering all the relevant aspeets ©fthe matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.15,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensatioii would make the compensation of Rs.37,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as ju^ and proper cQmpensation in the facts and circumstanGes of the presentcase. 12) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for aihancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The ©latmantis awardedfurther sum ofRs.15,000/"(Rupeesflfteenthousandoriy) inclusive of interest componenfr on the enhanGed amount ®f compensation in addiUon to thesum QfRs.37,000/-awarded bythe Tribunal. 13) Respondent No.3 the Ufco Tokiyo General Insurance Company is granted three months' time for deposlting the totat sum -2^ MACNo.1121 of 2010 of Rs.15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand only) before the conceming Claims Tribunal. 14) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nimmi