,?^ ^? HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. IVIisc. Appeal (Cl No. 218 of 2010 Appellant/ Claimant Hem Prakash s/o Narayan Dhruw, aged about 16 years, through natural guardian, his father Narayan Dhruw s/o Pooran Singh Dhruw, aged about 35 years, r/o village Mendra, Police Station Bhatapara, district Raipur C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1. Lal Ram s/o Santu Ram Sahu aged about 28 years, (Driver of the offending vehicle) 2. Aaju Ram, s/o Kartik Ram Sahu, aged about Unkndwn (Owner of the offending vehicle) Both are r/o village Tehka, police station Bhatapara Gramin, tahsil Bhatapara, district Raipur C.G. 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Kachhari Chowk, Madina Manzil, Raipur, district RaipurC.G. (Insurer ofthe offending vehicle) Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Wlotor Vehicle Act. Present: . Shri P.K. Patel, counsel for fhe appellant. Shri Vikram Dixit, counset for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER rth (27InAugust,20;-J) ,^:J;;-^ A \j^y MACNo. 218 of 2010 The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This is claimant's appeal fc' enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additior>al Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, district Raipur (fcr ahort 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.03.2009, passed in Claim Case No.13/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- claimed by appellant/claimant Hem Prakash, a boy aged about 16 years by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act through his father Narayan, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.01 .2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.32,000/- as compensation atong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of ths claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny o?the entire evidence led before it held the Oriental Insurancs Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration Nos.C.G.04-D/1192 and C.G.04-D/1193, liable to pay 'compensation to the claimant. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Tractor- Trolley has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained 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 provea' to have been spent on treatment, awarded lump-sum of Rs.32,000/- as compensation to ?^^jEi^e5^ j^b^ 6" MACNo, 218 of 2010 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.32,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri P.K. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.32,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures of his ribs in the motor accident. 7) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Vikram Dixit, learned counsel for respondents No.1 Lal Ram and No.2 Aaju Ram, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley, also supported the award. 9) Claimant Hem Prakash was aged about 16 years on the date.of the accident. He used to work as agricultural labour and also used to assist his father in agricultural operations. The claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures of his ribs in the motor accident is borne out from the evidence available on record. The claimant on account of the fractures of his ribs neither he could have performed his duties as labour nor ^' MACNo. 218 of 2010 ^ he could have assisted his father in his agricultural operations, resulting in monitory loss to him. 10) The compensation of Rs.32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is somewhat on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 11) Considering all the relevaat aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.5,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation wouid make the compensation of Rs.32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.5,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.32,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13) Respondent No.3 the Orientallnsurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of RS.5,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 14) No order as to costs. —- am~ Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judee h~;'(..