• l^ HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Aupeal (Q No. 338 of 2007 APPELLANT Smt. Kanakdei VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Deepak Kumar Pandey & others ORDER For consideration ?,*? -06-2011 Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta 3 a^/ J^. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Judge 2.) -06-2011 Postfor:^S-06-2011 Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge YS^ <LV HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (Q No. 338 of2007 AppeUant Respondetits Snxt, Kanakdei W/ o Shri SonaiTi aged about 45 years R/o Vfflage Negaaar, PS Darbha, Distt. Bastar (CG). VBRSUS 1. Deepak Kum.ar Pandey S/o Abhay Kumar Paadey aged about 23 years R/o Village. Kiikaiiar PS Kukaaar Distt. Daatevada (CG) (Driver of the vehicle) 2. Domu S/o Sardu R/o ViUage Guma PO Kodad Pal Tah. Konta Distt. Dantevada(CG). 3. Oriental Insuraace Compaay Limited, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG). (Misc^ Appeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor YehicleB Acfl DBj^H^n>bleShi'iRajeevGuptaiJC.J.& Hoa»bleShri N. K. Afiarwal, J. Present : Shn PK Tulsyaa, Advcx^ate for fhe appeUaiit. Shri Shailendra Shanna, Advocate for respondent No. 3/Insuraace Conipaay. JUDGMBNT (Delivered on ^5_.06.2011) Per : N.K. Agarwal, J. 1, Instaat appeal has been preferred by the appellant seeking enhanceraent of compensation in the award dated 20.12.2006, passed by the IVth Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Bastar, Jagdalpur (for short 'fhe Tribzinal') ia claim case No. 5/06. 2. Brief facts offhe case are fhat: on 14.05.2005, due to rash and \ . negUgent driviag of driver of Tractor bearing registration No. CG-18-0-032^ & its TroUey No. CG-18-0-0329, the said Tractor -"'x"^ :'^' i t8ff1^ S '^-'—'""v^^ \. ^v :^^^:^" -y 6. turaed turfle as a result ofwhich the appellant who was sitting ia the troUey sustained iiiultiple injzines. As agaiast fhe conipensation of Rs. 6,15,000/- clamied by the appeUaat/claimaijLt by filing a claim petition nnder Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Acf), for the iajuries sustaiiied by her iti the raotor accident on 14.05.2005; fhe Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 2,000/- as coinpensation along wifh interest @ 6 percent per annum froia the date of filing of the claim petition tiU the date of actiial payment. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiay of the entire evidence led, niaterial placed and submissions raade by the parties, held : accident occurred due to rash aad negligeiit driving of driver of offenduig vehicle; alfhough claimiant siisteined miiltiple injuries iacluding fracture ia the index fiiiger of right hand bzit failed to prove permaiient disabiUty; awarded Rs. 2,000/~ in favour of claiinaat payable by flie responclents joratiy aud severally along witti iaterest @ 6 percent from the date of application till the date of actaal payinent, Shri PK Tulsyau, learaed counsel appearuig for the appellant would subiait: fhe Tribunal has erred in awarding low axtioiint of compensation of Rs. 2,000/- only, though the appellant on account of iajuries aiid facture sustaitied by her iti the accident has been rendered -anfit to pursue her occupatjon as labour aad fherefQre, award aoiount deserves to be suitably enhanced "i lookiag to'the facts and circumstaaces oftlie case. On the otlier< haad, Shri Shailendra Sharma, learaed counsel appearmg for the respondent No. 3/Insurance Company -^ "it T^ 8. ^•^"\ supported the award impiigned and would submit : fhe appellaat wifh ofher passengers was traveling in the otTending vehicle as gratuitoiis passenger and insiirance company is not at atl Uable for payment of corapensation to the claimaiit inasiaiich as, the nsk of the appellaBt/claimaat is neither statutorily required to be covered zinder the policy nor the iasuraace company had taken siich risk by enteriiig into special contract witli tlie msured/owner by charging extra preiaiuni therefor. He would fiirther subniit iu the facts and circumstaaces of the case, the amount awarded by the Tribiinal is just aad proper and needs no interi'erence. As fhe respondent No. 3/0riental Insurajice Company has not chaUenged its Uability by preferring appeal, therefore, the fuidiags of the Tribunal holding the Insurance Company liable for payment of compensation to fhe claiTnant has now atteined fuiaUty. It appears that the appellaiit has utterly failed to prove any disability occurrcd on account of injuries sustsined by her in fhe said accident by leading cogent and clinchiTig evidence and by exaaiiniag treating doctor in this regard and by prodiicing relevaat material on record. However, it is also tnie that appellant was aged about 45 years on the date of accident, she was a laboiir by occupation; sustained serious injiiries including fracture in fhe index finger of right hand as estabUshed l)y Dr. L.L. Thakur (AW-2), therefore, she miist have 1. suffered paia aad suffering, must have spent at least some aiaount on treAtment and must have suffered loss of eamiBg fbr few days. ^-T^ ...^" // /" ?\ ^x ^ 9. The compensation of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Tribiinal, when examined iu fhe Ught of above mentioned broad featiires of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deser^es to be enhanced suitabty. 10. Considenng all the relevaat aspects of the matter, we are of the opiaion fhat further award ofRs. 10,000/- iaclusive ofinterest component would make fhe compensation of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by fhe Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts aad circunistaaces of the present case. 11. The appeal filed by fhe appellant/clalniaat for enhancement of coinpensation, therefore, is allowed in part, The claimant is awarded further suni of Rs. 10.000/- inclusive of interest component in addition to the suni of Rs. 2,000/-, awarded by fhe Tribunal. 12. Respondent No. 3/ Oriental Insurance Conipany Limited is graated tliree raonths' time for deposituig the total suiii of Rs. 10,000/- before the conceming Clainis Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu