HIGH COURT OF CMHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIOINLBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE §HRIRAJEEV QUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CKANDRAKAR, J. i»8!S:!'!ll Misc. Appeal No. 944 of 2004 Aopellant : Mohanlal Khunte S/o Shri Phtrat Ciafmant Ram Khunfe, aged about 19 years, caste Satnami, R/o VMage Kirit, Tehsi! Navagarh, Distt. Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Respondents ;:i:^''n?K£ i.^.i VERSUS 1. Bhuneshwar Sahu S/o Chhabilal Sahu, aQedt about 25 years, R/o Vilage Raipura, Tehsil Saktl, Police Station Sakti, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) (Driver) 2. Radheshyam Agrawal S/o Shri Krishna Kumar Agrawal, R/o Station Road, Sakti, Potice Station Sakti, Tehsi! Sakti, Distt. Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) (Owner) 3. United India Insurance Company Ltd. Raigarh, behind Gopi TalWes, College Road, Raigarh, Distt. Raigarh (C.G.) Through : Divisional Manager, United india Insurance Company Ltd, Korba, Division Office, infront of Maharshi Schoo!, Main Road, Korba, Teh. & Distt. Korba (C.G.) (insurer) Misc.ADpeal U/S 173ofthe Mtrtor Vehjcles Act. .Presenf: Shri P.K. Patel, counsel fortfte appelfant. Shri Sushll Sahu, counsel for respondents No.l & 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER >th (28m October, 2010) ^T-S'.UigBit >i..lliali tfSA The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Mohanlal Khunte is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, (for short the Tribunat') vide award dated 10.08.2004, passed in Claim Case No. 160 of 2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.22,50,000/- claimed by the appetlant/claimant, by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident on 26.03.^)03, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,743/- as compensatlon to the ctalmant. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Mohanlal Khunte sustained multiple injuries in the motor accident on 26.03.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivlng of the drlver of the offending vehicte Maruti Car bearing r^lstration No.CG-11/6881; as the above offending vehicle Maruti Car cn the date of the accldent was insured with the Unlted India tnsurance Company Limlted and the Insurance Company could not establlsh any breach crf the policy condltions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not flled any appeal against award, the above flndings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. y¥ ,-a:<iise litg wm ,~ ssSl 5) The Tribunat 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 been spent on his treatment, awarded fts.10,000/- tcwards paln and suffering; Rs.1,543/- towards medicat expenses; Rs.1,2507- towards loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.1,250/- towards attendant; Rs.1,000/- for the injuries sustained by the ciaimant in the motor accident; and Rs.700/- towards speclal diet. The Tribunat, thus, awarded a totai sum of Rs.15,743/- as compensatlon to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 6) As the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Maruti Car had atready paid a sum of Rs.25,(W/- under Sectlon 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act tcwards 'No Fault Liability' and the amount compensation awarded by the Trlbunal was tess than the said amount of Rs.25,000/-, the Tribunal directed the daimant to return a sum of Rs.9,257/- to the Insurance Company. 7) Shri P.K. Patel, leamed counsel for the appellant submitted that the Trtbunal has not oniy erred in awarding low compens^tion of Rs.15,743/- only, has also acted harshly in directing the ctaimant to retum a sum of Rs.9,257/- to the insurer of the offending vehicte Maruti Car. 8) Shn Dashrath Gupta, leamed counsel for respondentNo.3 United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensatlon of ":.!-;II.SC i«.i i]:3;'i!i& iaa Rs.15,743/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compen^lon in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) Shri Sushil Sahu, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 aiso supported the award. 10) Claimant Mohantal Khunte was aged about 17-1 8 years on the date of the accident. Hewasastudentof12' standard. The Tribunal has found that the claimant sustained multiple injuries in the motor accident. He must have suffered physlcal pain and mental agony on account ofthose injuries. 11) On due consideratlon of all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the oplnion that compensatlon of Rs.25,000/- ought to have been awarded by the Tribunal to the clalmant. 12) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed In part. The compensatlon of Rs.15,743/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.25,000/-. 13) The clalmant has already recelved the sum of Rs.25,000/- from the insurer of the offending vehicle Maturi Car by way of interim compensation incompliance of the order of the Tribunat dated 01-04-2004. As the direction passed by the Trlbunat in the impugnfed award in regard to rwovery of the amount of Rs.9,257/- at the behesi'of the insurer was stayed in this appeal vide order dated 21-10-2004, the ^iid amount has not been recovered from the appellant so far. As such, the Insurer of the offending vehicle Maturi Car now is not required to depos'rt any further sum before the Tribunal as the amount of Rs.25,000/- ncw iil":!iii§e'*3 subbu awarded by us has atready been received by the claimant from the insurer of the offending vehicle Maturi Car. 14) No-QHle!- as to costs. Sd/.- Ouef Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judee :r. lll?5!s |i.