.?^\ ^•y^^%? I 1 vw ^^,^tS HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRIG. MINHAJUDDIN, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 1374 of 2007 Appellant 4- Respondents V.K. Mishra (Vijay Kumar' Mishra) aged 37 years, son of Shri RN Mishra, resident of CISG RTC Utai Tahsil and District Durg (CG) VERSUS 1) Lakhvir Singh, son of Surat Singh age non known, resident of near Old Shiva MandirColony, Supela, Bhilai Tahsil and District Durg (CG) ' 2) Ranjit Singh Malkat resident of 165/3 VIP Nagar, Risali, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (CG) 3) Zonal Manager, United India Insurance Co Limited, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur (CG) District Raipur (CG) Memo of appeal underSectlon 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Somkant Verma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vijay Sahu, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey,counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER yth (17tnAugust,2011) "^ The followiqg order of the Court was passed' by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ;'-^ M.A.(C)No.1374 of 2007 o... Appellant/ claimant Vijay Kumar Mishra is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.03.2007, passed in Claim Case No.11/2007. 2) As against the compensation ofRs. 10,60,0007- claimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.06.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.42,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Indica Car bearing registration No.CG-07/ZD/4725 liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Tata Indica Car 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 proved to have spent on treatment, awarded Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards future medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; and Rs.2,000/- for special diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.42,000/- as compensation to the M.A.(C)No.1374 of 2007 5 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.42,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Somkant Verma, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.42,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 10%. 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the ihsurerofthe offending vehicle Tata Indica Car, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Vijay Sahu, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Lakhvir Singh and respondent No.2 Ranjit Singh Malkat, the driver and owner of .the offending vehicle Indica Car also supported the award. 9) Claimant Vijay Kumar Mishra was aged about 37 years on the date of the accident. He was working as constable in CISF and was posted at Durg. The ctaimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident is established from the evidence of AW2 Dr. Akhilesh Yadav. It is a matter of M.A.(C)No.1374 of 2007 common knowledge that substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. It is true that the claimant being in the government service, the medical expenses incurred by him could have been reimbursed by the government, if claimed by the claimant. The claimant on account of the fractures sustained by him in the motor accident could not have attended his duties for a period of about two months and must have taken leave for that period. The Tribunal certainly has erred in not awarding any sum towards the loss of leave taken by the claimant. 10) The compensation of Rs.42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 11) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.10,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12) The appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.10,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.42,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. •^ M.A.(C)No.1374 of 2007 (^ 13) Respondent No.3 the Unjted India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.10,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 14) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- G. Minhajuddm Judge nlmmi