CORAM: HON’BLE SHR! RAJEEV GUPTA; CJ. ' HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KEMAR $ENHA, J. Misc. Appeal No.392 of 20M Anneilant maimant HIGH CGURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DWISION BENCH Nageshwar Mandai, S/o Ram Kishun MandaL aged abaut 3G years, 'occupation Business, R/o Viliage Bishrampur, Police Station Bishmmpur, Tahasii Surajpur, Distt Surguja(CG) VERSUS Om Prakash alias Sanjay, S/o Anand Ram, aged abaut 26 years, Rio Village Satapata, Poiice Station Bishrampur, ,Tahsil —- Surajpur! Distt Surguja(CG) (Driver) Sulochna Devi, W/o late Neera Kumar Mandal, aged about 26 years, Occupation — house wife, R/o Village Bishrampur, Tahsil Surajpur, Distt Surguja (CG) (Owner) United lndia Insurance Co. Ltd, through Branch Manager, branch — Ambikapur, Dist Surguja (CG) (insurer) espendents him-applicants Misc. Appeal under Section W3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. Present: Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 & 2 though served. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (9th March, 2010) i Rajeev Gupta, C.J. \ The following order of the Court was passed by j Appeliant Nageshwar' Mandal has weferred this appeai ‘abalnst the impugned award dated 24 01 2002 passed by +he Additional Motor Acordent Ctalms Tnbunal Suralpur, Dlstnct S N 416/2000, whereby the appeliant‘s ctaim petition med under ection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, seeking compensation of §s.15,00,000/— for the injuries sustained by him in the motor ‘ ‘ accident on 06.05.2000, was dismissed. 2) Shri Atanu Ghosh, teamed counsei for the appeliant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the appellant’s claim petition giving undue weight to non—mentioning of the date of the claimant‘s medical examination by the doctor in the medical certificates. Learned counset further submitted that the evidence of appellant/claimant Nageshwar Mandel; the contents of the First 1 3 i umUJa (for short ”the Tribunal) In Motor Accrdent Clarm Case . lhformation Report; and the two medical certificates ptoduced l l hefore the Tribunal were more than sufficient to establish the a‘ppeliant’s claim for compensation. l 3) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 United lndia insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that as the appellant could not establish his case before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the appellant’s claim petition. g4) in support of his claim, appellant Nageshwar Mandel {examined himself as AW/1 before the Tribunal. The ciaimant alsc examined l AW/2 Sajjan Kumar in support of his claim. 4 ‘ 5) From the evidence of AW“. Nageshwar Manda? and AW/2 $ajjan Kumar, the fact of accident of Jeep bearing registration NoMP27D/O265 in which AWN Nageshwar Mandel (claimant) and W/2 Sajjan Kumar were travelling is fully established. it is further i1 their evidence that, the Jeep over — turned due to rash and iegligent l driving of the driver of the Jeep. The Tribunal has held that the Jeep, on the date of the accident, was insured with the w . united india insurance Company Limited. it is further evident from l the documents available in the record that the said Jeep was i l riegistered in the name cf claimant’s brother Neeraj Kumar. It has turther come in the evidence o'f AW/1 Nageshwar Mandel (rciaimant) that, after the death of Neeraj Kumar, his widow respondent No.2 Sulochana Devi has become owner of the Jeep. 6) in view of the evidence avaiiabie on record and the above mentioned broad features of the case, the View taken by the Tribunal that the claimant is not entitled to get compensation as he cannot be considered as Third Party, cannot iegaiiy be sustained. 7) in our opinion, appellant/claimant Nageshwar Mandai is entitled to get compensation and respondent No.3 United india insurance Company Limited is iiabie to pay compensation to the appeiiant / claimant.- l 8) Considering the number and nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant l claimant in the motor accident and the amount iNhich the claimant must have spent on his treatment and the pain and i suffering which the claimant must have undergone on account bf those injuries, we are of the opinion that lump-sum, of i x i Rs.10,000/- would be-just and proper compensation for the injuries sustained by the ciaimant in the motor accident. 9) I For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fried by the appeiiant/ ciaimant against the impugned award is hereby aiiowed. By setting aside the impugned award dated 24.01.2002, the ciaimant ie awarded a lump-sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation for the ‘miuries sustained by him In the motor accrdent A further sum of R31 OOO/— awarded towards interest on the above amount of icompensatron of Rs.10,000f-. i . HO) Respondent No3 United india Insurance Company Limited is ’oranted three months time for deposxtrng the tetai sum of Rstt OOOI- (Rs10000/- towards compensation + Rst ODD/- towards Interest on the compensation of Rs.10,000/—) before the . concerning Claims Tribunal. i M) No order as to costs. 2*" we Sd/_ . T’ 9\ ' Sunll Kumar Smha 7 Sd/' ' ‘ Judge CHIEF JUSTICE