tH A.T ;TS^°t? 1 iWi IVMSMKA ~M A I^SS 01 APPELLAN" Bhagwat Prasad, S/o Shri Keshavram Dahariya, Aged about 35 years, R/o Viilage : Karhidih, Police ^Station:Baloda, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattlsgarh, Presently R/o Chingrajpara- Umariya Chowk, Bilaspur, Tehsil & District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. !i» Versus Ganeshram, (Driver of Tanker No.CG- 12/ZC-1197), S/o Shri Lateirsm Nirmalkar, Aged about 31 years, R/o Viilage : Rasota, Police Station Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh Kumar Pundiik, S/o Shri R.C. Pundlik, R/o 66, Kosabadl Korba, Dlstrict Korba, Chhattisgarh (Owner of Tanker No.CG- 12/ZC-1197). 3 Divisional Manager, 'he Nev< india Insurance Co. Ltd., Transport Nagar, Korba, Through : Manager, The New india Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajendra Nagar C.howk, Bilaspur, District Biiaspur (CG) % •i^sl^l l W4/ '"<3B,- _..»<i<!' l:»BSBP ISC^ELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDERSECTiON 173 OF THl njay K. Agara/ai and Mr. Sudeep Agan.va!, Counsel for No.2. >.3. Wr. Qa the ai K4r. Rakesh Sahu, Counsel for Mr. Ajay Mishra, Counsei for 8.02.S ^^ ^i^- 2.010 The foliov/in.g iudgment of the Court was delivered nit n.i T'ne appeliant/ciaimant has fiied this appeai for enhancemenf of the amount of compensatlon awarded in Claim Case No.40/2003 bv the IV Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribuna), Bilaspur (CG) vide award dated 27.03.2004. - The facts, briefly stated, are as under: The appellani/claimant fiied a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.17,60,000/-, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, which took place on 18.05.2002, when the SuzukE Motorcycie, on which the appeliant was travelling as a piliion rider, was dashed by the offending Tanker bearing registration No.CG- 12/ZC-1197, on account of rash and negiigent driving of the said tanker by its driver. The appellant contended that he was working as a Meson and was earning Rs.125/- per day. He further contsnded that in the said accident, he received serious injuries on his right leg, which has resulted into permanent disablement. The appeilant examined h.imself as AW-1 and he aiso examined Dr.G.L. Arora as AW-2 and Kaushal as AW-3. The respondents did not examine any witness in rebuttal. The CSaims Tribunal recorded the finding that the accldent occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending Tanker bv its driver and the driver, owner and insurer of the Tanker ""'^ ggll^ 1 '•^.•"'y iVl.iBt. i' J;.^;;^^' were jointly and severaiiy ilable to pay 'compensation to the snnQa|?ant ^l ^t/twfTirf 1 i^A [ 1^« Ths Tribunat assessed the income of the appellant as Rs.110/- per day. Taking that the appeilant >A-as v/orking on dsiiy wage basis, his monthiy income was assessed at Rs.2750/- treating 25 working days in a month. The Tribunal he!d that on sccount of the said accident, the appellant couid not perform his v/ork of Meson for about 10 months, therefore, the Trlbuna! awarded Rs.27,500/- as loss of Incoms to the appeilant. The Tribunai further awarded Rs.12,000/- for the aitendant for 10 months @ Rs.1200/- per rnonth. For permanent disabiiity, a sum of Rs.25,000/- v/as awarded. The Tribunal a'A'arded Rs.1,47,583.3{ folr medicines and expenses incurred in treatment ete. Apart from the above, Rs.20,000/- was awarded for pain and sufferings and Rs.30,000./- was awarded for loss of probable additions in future income. Rs.20,000/- was awarded for future treatment. Over and above, Rs.3000/- was also awarded by'the Tribunal. The Tribuna! avi'arded a total sum of Rs.2,76,000/- as corrpensation -to the appeiiant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribuna! av/arded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of flling ofthe claim petition tiil its rea'ization. Mr. Sanjay K. AgapA'al and Mr. Sudeep Agam'ai, learned counse! appearing for the appellant arguea' that a !ow compensation has besn av/arded to the appeilant under each head, therefore, the sarne shouldbe suitabiyenhanced. On the other hand, Mr. Rakesh Sahu and Mr. Ajsy Mishra, learned counsei appearing for the respective respondents opposed these arguments. Mr. Ajay Mishra, Searned counse! for respondent No.3 submittet that as per contents of para 10 of the impugned award, It was a case in which 3 persons were traveiling on a Suzuki Motorcycle, therefore, the % <~ss^. s\ .:^';:^::;;:k^':. I-'; ^ Tribunai, considering the entire facts and circumstances, has awarded the said amount and there Is no scope for enhancement. We have heard !earnsd counse! for the parties at iength and have also perused the records ofthe ciaim case. So far as injuries sustained by the appeilant is concerned, we find that there was a fracture on the right-tibia fibula bone and Dr.G.L. Arora (AW-2) deposed that at the time of admission of the appeilant in the hospital, it was appearing difficult to save his ieg. We note that the appeliant was examined by the Medicai Board and it has been certified that the injur/ (fracture) sustained by the appellant has caused infection and stlffness in ankle and knee, due to 'A'hich, the appellant sustained 40% permanent disabiiity. It was aiso deposed by the Doctor that after sustaining such Injuries, the appeliant wouid not be able to perforrn the job of Meson by climbing on buiidings ete. After considering the above broad features of the injuries and the permanent disability sustained by the appeilant and holding that the appeiiant v/as unabie to perform his job for a period of 10 months, the Tribuna! assessing the monthly income of the appeilant as Rs.2750/- In the above manner, awarded a sum of Rs.27,500/- as ioss of earning to the appeliant. The Tribunai has been quite liberai in awarding Rs.12,QOO/- for an attendant for a period of 10 months @ Rs.1200/- per month. Seelng the nature of permanent disabiiity sustained by the appeilant, the Tribunai has a-vvarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- to the appei'ant, which also appears to be reasonabie. As far as expenditure in treatment is concerned, the Tribunal has alSowed all t'ne bilis filed by the appeiiant and has awarded a sum of Rs.1,47,589.38 on this account. This amount is based on the documentary ..->^f<: S-, •». 1 VsaS-"^ ''<». ^vs^^' 'S nf '51 ii^ <J| &' evidence produced by the appeliant, therefore, nothing can be added to it. Apart from the above, we find that the Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,000/- for pain and sufferings and Rs.30,000/- for probable additions In future income. Finaily a tota! sum of Rs.2,76,000/- has been awarded to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him. On due considera'tion of the subrnissions made by tearned counsei for the appei!ant and ora! and documentary evidence adduced by the s.ppeilant, we do not find any scope for enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is liable to be dismi herebydismissed. T'nere shall no order as to cost(s). Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Prashant Kumar ^4ishra Judge NUUWU<^i'.