J IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL fC) No. 5<i3 /2011. APPELLANT CLAIMANT ^»1- (6^^>^-:: ^'-•••^^'"^- ^^"^s^ Shobha Ram, S/o. Shri Bharoshi Lal Baghel, aged about 59 years, R/Q. Village Bhantha (Bhutaka), Post Kosamtara, District Bilaspur (C.G.) It;-"'" .-•f' .-•^*' r at''3X..--'^:^ ^t-""' G. \\ VER S U S RESPONDENTS : 1. Sushil Kumar, S/o. Sachhanand Malghani, aged about 35 years, R/o. Village Chakarbhata Camp, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver of Vehicle No. C.G.10/EB-8361) 2. Prakash Potani, S/o. Gopal Das Potani, R/o. near Kali Mandir, Chakarbhata Camp, Police Station Chakarbhata, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner of Vehicle No. C.G.IO/EB-8361) 3. The National Insurance Company Lmiited, Through : Branch Manager, Branch Office B-l, n Taha complex Vyapar Vihar Road, Infront of Pridamiya Nagar Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (G.G.) (Insurer ofVehicle No. C.G.10/EB-8361) APPEAL U/s. 173 OF THEMOTOR VBHICLEACT 1988 /' .r' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (CINo. 549 OF 2011 APPELLANT Claimant RESPONDENTS Shobha Ram Versus Sushit Kumar and others. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : 3. 4. Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, counsei for the appeilant. Mr. Anand Pandey, counsel for respondents No. 1 & 2. r. B.N. Nande, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (12.12.2011) Heard on I.A. No.1/2011 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. On due consideration, 1 am satisfled that the appellant is succeeded in explaining the cause of delay in filing the appeal and, therefore, the application {I.A. No.1/2011} is allowed. Delay in filing the appeat is condoned. Wrth the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by 8th Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal) passed in Claim Case No. 2/2009 vide its award dated 01.10.2009. As against the compensation of Rs.2,63,880/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing claim petitlon under Sectlon 166 of the Motor Vehictes Act for the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident on 24.12.2008; the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,000/- alona with interest 8> 9 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition tiil its actual payment. The Tribunal; on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of motor cvcle bearinq reaistration No.CG-IO/EB-8361 bv its -^, '•1.33S^::'.. 8. driver i.e. respondent No. 1; the appellant/claimant sustained injuries in the said accldent including permanent disability to the extent of 10%; the respondent No.S/lnsurance Company liable for payment of compensation as it could not establish the viotation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded aforesaid sum as compensation to the claimant. Shri Paras Mani Shriwas, learned eounset appearing for the appellanfclaimant vehemently contended that although the medicat expenses has been reimbursed by the Department and appellanfclaimant has also not sustained future loss of income in the said accident buUhe Tribunal has erred in not awarding amount of Rs.25,000/- awardable to the claimant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, inasmuch as, admittedty the appellant/claimant has sustained permanent disabllity to the extent of 10% and thus has fallen in error in awarding only Rs.5,000/- as compensation. On theother hand, Shri B.N. Nande, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 3/lnsurance Company supported the award and submitted that in the facts & circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper. 9. Shri Anand Pandey; learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 & 2 also supported the award impugned. 1 have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. Indisputably, the claimant sustained fracture in the left leg resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 10%. Therefore, the appellant/claimant is entitled to Rs.25,000/- under Section 140 of the MStor Vefficles Act. Tribunal wlthout considering the above provision has awarded only Rs.5,000/- to the claimant. It is also a matter of common knowledge in fracture a considerable amount of money is required for treatment. Besldes above, the claimant has to spend some amount towards special diet, attendant and for conveyance. 6 ^^ 12. When the matter is examined in the context of above broad features of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, further award of Rs.25,000/- would make the amount of compensation as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 13. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of compensation' is altowed in part. The compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. The appellant/claimant is further entitled to receive Rs. 25,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. Enhanced amount of Rs.25,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fillng of claim petition till its actual payments. Award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. 14. The respondent No. 3/National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months time to deposit enhanced amount of compensation of Rs. 25,000/- along with interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of filing of claim petition before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 15. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ~<<f sa ;('- yr v^,^'.-1