HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH k i I I i CORAM: HONIBLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Jppellant Misc. Appeal No. 698 of 2004 Vishwanath Prasad alias Shiva s/o I MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF TH‘E MOTOR. VEHICLES ACT Present: Shri Neeraj Choubey, counsel for the appellant. 1 Shri HEB. Agrawal, Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Shri Prashant Jayaswal, Senior Counsel with Shri Shaiiendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (20m January, 2011) ’ Saukhilal Suryavanshi aged about I I 18 years occupation Auto Mechanic ’ u ‘ I R/o ViHage Ratanpur, P.S. & Tahsil I Ratanpur district Bilaspur (C.G.) i VERSUS i Respondents ‘ Prabhat Kumar Dubey s/o B.L. i Dubey r/o D/16 Vinoba Nagar i Biiaspur. ‘ (Owner of vehicle No.M.P.26/C- 1388) 7’ 2. Hamid Khan slo Chedu Khan aged about 4Q years R/o Khapparganj, near Laxmi Narayan Lodge Biiaspur. (Driver of‘vehicle No.M.P.26/C-1 388) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company § Limited, through Branch Manager, City Branch Office, Dayalband Bilaspur, Bilaspur C.G. ' The following order of the Court was passed by iRajeev Gupta, C.J_ Appellant/ claimant Vishwanath Prasad alias Shiva is jseeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the EAdditional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the tTribunal’) vide award dated 15.04.2004, passed in Claim Case t Now/2001 . , V . 2) As against the compensation of Rs.7,.77,000/- claimed by the ‘apptenant/ claimant, by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16.01 .2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.81 ,746/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% 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 that claimant Vishwanath Prasad alias Shiva sustained multiple injuries including‘fracture in the motor accident. on 16.01.2001; the injuries and fracture sustained by the claimant in the motor accident resulted in disability to the extent of 60%; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.M.P.26C-1388; as the above offending vehicle Bus, on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental insurance Company Limited and the insurance Company c‘duld not establish any breach of the policy h). @ G conditions, the Insurance Company was Habie to pay compensation to the claimant. _ 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the jaward, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. l l5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the linjuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor V . accident; the resultant disability to the extent of 60%; and the amount proved to have been spent on his treatment, awarded Rs.50,000/— towards disability on account of the injuries and fracture sustained by the claimant in the motor accident; Rs.‘l6,746/— towards medical expenses; Rs.10,000!— towards pain and suffering; Rs.3,000/- towards conveyance; and Rs.2,000/- towards special diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum ‘of Rs.81,746/— as compensation to 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.81 ,746i~ @ 9% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.81,746f— only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries and fracture in the motor accident rendering ‘him unfit to pursue his occupation as Auto-Mechanic. Id.../_/ 7) Shri Prashant Jayaswal, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Shaitendra Sharma counsel for respondent No.3 -— the Oriental ihsurance Company Limited, on the other hand; supported the a‘ward and contended that the compensation of Rs.81,746/— a‘warded i by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri H.B. Agrawalulearned Senior Counsel with Smt. Meera Jaisn/al, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Prabhat Kumar Dubey, the owner of the offending vehicle Bus also supported the \ s award. 9) Claimant Vishwanath Prasad alias Shiva was aged about 18 years on the date of the accident. He sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident including fracture of his right femur is established by the evidence of AW4 Dr. V.K. Khetrapal. lt is a matter of common knowledge that substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. On account of the fracture- of his right femur. the claimant could not perform his duties for sufficiently long period. The claimant must have suffered physical pain and mental agony on account of the fracture of his right femur for a period of atleast 4—6 months. 10) The compensation of Rs.81,746/- 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. @ l 11) Considering all the reievant aspects of the matter, we are of th‘e opinion that further award of Rs.30,000/— inciusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.81 [7461- awarded by the Tribunal ae just i and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. '12) The appeal filed by’the appellant! claimant for enhancement of ‘t‘h‘e compensation, therefore; is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.30,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount ofcompensation in addition to the sum of Rs.81 .746l— awarded by the Tribunal. i3) Respondent No.3 the Oriental insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.30,000/— before the concerning Claims Tribunal. ‘ a i 14) No order as to costs. ,5 sal- i i Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha 1 Chief Justice r Judge. (f