.<s ,^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILJ^PUR Mlsc.Ap^ealNo. 1205/2004 SB: Hon'ble Slui Justice R.L. Jhanwar APPBLtANT N. Ramu Versus Bhira Bahadur and 2 others. ORDER iwwa Post for order on 7 r?.3,2QU Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^ .3.2011 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR BBNCH: HOWBLB SHRI R.L.JHAMWAR, J. Misc. Aoneal No.l20S of 2004 N. Ramu, s/o N. Auand Rao, aged about 36 years, Caste Nai, R/o Kumdakot (Ainaguda) Post Office J^dalpur, Distnct Bastar (Chhattisgarh). APPELLAMT CIaimant VERSUS RE8PONDENTS : 1 Bhim Bahadur Adhikari, s/o Non-appUcaats Dambar Bahadur Adhikari, R/o Kiimharpara, Behiad Weather office, Jagdalpur (CG) 2 Shiv Kumar Mudliyar, S/o Amrit Lal Mudliyar, Kuiiiharpara, Behind Weather office, Jagdatpur (CG) 3 The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Through Branch Maaager, In front of Anupama TaUdes, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDiBR SECTION 173 OP THE MOTOR VEHICLE8 ACT Appeaiance: Shri Santosh Bharat, couasel for the appeUant. None for respondents No. 1 aad 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. R.L.Jhanwar, J ORDBR (23.3.2011) AppeUaat- N. Ramu is seeking eiihaaceaicnt of the coinpeusation awarded by the 2nd Additioaal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short 'fhe Tribunat') vide award dated 8.7.2004, passed in Claim Case No. 85/2003. 2. As agamst fbe conipensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, claimed by fhe appellaut/claimant by filmg a claim petition under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for the iajuries sustaiaed by him iu fhe inotor accident on 17.2.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total siun of Rs.6,000/ - as compensation to the clairaaat along with interest @ 9% p.a. froin fhe date of filing of the claiin petition tiU fhe date of actual payruent. 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held fhat fhe claimaat- N. Ramu sustained inultiple iujuries wifh ftacturc in shoiUder ia the inotor accident on 17.2.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofthe driver offhe offending vehicle - Jeep bearing registration No. CG17 T 0007; as ttie offendiug vehicle Jeep on the date of fhe accident was ias'tLred with thc United India Insurance Coinpaay LiTnited, fhe Insziraace Conipany was liable to pay coinpensation to the clatmant. 4. As the respondents have not filed any appeat agaiast the award, the above findings recorded by fhe Tnbiuial have now attaiued finality. 5. The Tribunal consideruig fhe number and nature of injuries proved to have been sustained by fhe claimaat ia fhe inotor accident aad the amount proved to have been spent on his treatnieut, awarded luinp sum amount of Rs.6,000/- as luedical expenses. However, no other araount has been awarded by the Tribuaal under ofher heads. The Tribunal, fhus awarded a total suin of Rs.6,000/ - as coinpensation to fhe claimant. The Tribunal further directed payinent of iaterest on fhe above amount of '•f:it'"ys?'SSiSsi§v:3'S9fli':"''-':;!1:'S'i??;@???"^"' gU( coinpensation @ 9% per annuin froin the date of filiug of the claim petition tiU fhe date ofactual paynient. 6. Leamed counsel for the appeUaat argued ttiat the Tribunal has awarded very less coinpensation even after 15% disabiUty certi&cate of ftie Medical Board; fhe Tribiuial has not awarded any amount towards paui aad sufferuig, loss of iucoine as also under ofher heads, whereas, the claiinaat/appeflant was admitted ia the hospital for fractuies of his shoulder aad ribs. He furfher ai^ued that Dr. L.N. Thakur (AW-2) has also stated in his evidence that there were fractures of coUar bone and left hand of the claimant and he sustained 15% disabillly. As per Medical Board report Ex. P/2, claiiuaat/appeUaiit has received 15% pennanent disability; even then also the leamed Tribunal has not awarded a siagle penny on accoitnt of 15 % permaaent disabiUly aud the Tribiiaal has awarded only Rs.6,000/- aud tbat too only towards inedical expenses, flierefoic, tbe amouat of coiapensation should be enhaaced. 7. On fhe other hand, leamed counsel for respondent No. 3/ Uaited India Insuraace Compaay Limited supported the award aad contended that the claimant/appeUant has not subnutted niedical bffls aud he has not sustamed pennaaent disabitily, fherefore, coiupensation of Rs.6,000/- awarded by fhe Tribunal is just emd proper coiiipensation ia fhe facts aad circuinstances offhe present case. 8. After perusal of record aad the evidence adduced by the claimaiit, it is clear that the claimaat/appeUant was Barber by profession. He sustained fractures va. his shoiUder and ribs, for which, he was adinitted ia Maharaiu. Hospital, Jagdalpur. The dischai^e ticket is Ex.P/3, according to which, he was adinitted from 17.2.2003 to 22.2.2003 for about 6 days. Certemly, he had ^i^g^'^^i^ spent soiae laoney for his treataient during this period. As fhe iiyuries sustataed by him iu fhe inotor accident were of serious nature, it would not have been possible for 1iim to attend for his profession as Barber for a period ofabout two inonths. 9. On due consideration of fhe subudssions of learued counsel for the parties and aU the relevant factors uicludiug the above aientioned broad features of the case, I ani of the opiuion that further award of Rs.21,000/- inclusive of iaterest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make fhe coiupensation of Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribuiial as just aad proper corapensation iu the facts and circiunstaaces of the present ( case. 10. The appeal filed by fhe appeUaat/claimant for eiihanceiuent of the coinpcnsation, therefore, is aUowed ia part, The apprilnnt/flaimnnt is awarded furfher suiu of Rs.21,000/- inclusive of interest coiaponent on the enhauced amouut of conipensation, iu addition to the sumi of Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribuiial. 11. Respondent No. 3 the United India Insurance Coinpany Limited is graated ffaree inonths' tuue for depositiag the suai of Rs.21,000/- before fhe concenung Claims Tribitnal. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge —-J