HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGAKH AT BILASPUR Misc.AppeaI (CWo. 327 of 2009 L.L. Gajaaand Sinha Versus Maaish Kuniar Nishad aad 2 oftiers. ORD E R Post for order on B'5.3.2011 Sd/- R.E. Jhanwar Judge '^S&^--' ^ ~^J ^ \^€/ "VW^-'SSS^' Misc. Appeal (Cl No.327 of20Q9 Claimant RESPOHDENTS Gajauand Sinha, S/o Narsin.gh SicLha, aged about 38 years, Caste Kalar R/o Gariabaud Thana Ganabajid Distnct Raipur CG VERSUS Manisll Kum.ar Nishad, s/o Kartikram, aged about 22 years, Caste Kenwat, R/o Nawapara (Kholi Mohalla) Nayapara, Thaaa Gobra Nayapara District Raipur, CG (Driver of the vehicle Truck bearmg Regd. No. CG 04/ZC 0897) Mohaaunad Mahiaood Rizvi, s/o Gaai Zaman Ahiuad Rizvi, R/o Nooraili Chowk, Nawapara, Rajim., Thaaa Gobra Nayapara, District Raipur CG (Owner of the vehicle Truck bearing Regd. No. CG 04/ZC 0897) Chief Manager, The New ludia Insuiaace Coinpauy C.D. Liiuited D.O.I.I.L.I.I.C.B.L.D.G. Vaishweek Parisar, Pandri RaipTir, C.G. (Insurer of the vehicle Truck bearing Regd. No. CG04/ZC0897) NISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTIQN 173 OF THE MOTQRVEHICLESACT, 1988 ^ Appearance: Shri K.K. Dewaagan, counsel for fhe appeUaat. None for respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, couiisel for respondent No.3. (03.03.2011) ->-'" AppeUaat-Gajanaad Siaha is seekuig enliaaceiaent of fhe coiapensatiou awarded by ffae Additional Motor Accident Claiins Tribuaal (FTC) Gariabaad, District Raipur (for short 'fhe Tribunan vide award dated 28.11.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 28/2008. 2. As agaiust the coiupensation of Rs.3,00,665/-, clauned by the appeUant/claitnan.t by filjng a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for the iujuries sustained by him ui ttie niotor accident on 20.2.2008, the Tribun.al awarded a total suin of Rs.40,822/- as conipensation to ihe claunant along wifh uiterest @ 9% p.a. froni the date offiHng of the claim petition. tiU ftie date of actual payTiient. 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutmy ofthe entire evidence led before it held that the claimaat sustained luultiple iajuries wifh fiacture in his leg ia the inotor accideut on 20.2.2008; the aceident occurred due to rash aiid negUgent driving of fhe driver of the offeudiag vehicle - Truck bearing registration No. CG 04/ZC/0897; as the offendiug vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was iiisured wifh the New India Insurauce Conipany Linuted, the Insurance Coiapaay was liable to pay coinpensation to the clamiaat. .-'-.^ffS'SS?^-. ^•'^~ .*:''^. ^c""-^ '"SSS"VSSSi S v e f 4. As the respondents have not filed aay appeal agamst the award, the above fiiidings recorded by fhe Tribunal have now attained finality. 5. The Tnbunal considermg the nuinber and nature of injuries proved to have been sustained by ftie clannant ia fhe uiotor accident and fhe amount proved to have been speut on his treatment, awarded Rs.10,422/- towards inedical expenses, Rs.2,000/- for conveyaace, Rs.1000/- for special diet, Rs.3400/- for attendaat and Rs.24,000/- for loss of iacoiae for 4 monfhs. The Tribunal, fhus awarded a total sum. of Rs.40,822/- as coinpensation to fhe claunant. The Tribunal furfher directed payiuent of iaterest on fhe above aiaount of conipeasation @ 9% per aunuin froni fhe date offiluig ofthe clami petition tfll fhe date of actual payment. 6. Leamed counsel for fhe appeUan.t argued fhatTribunal has not awarded a siagle penny on account of pam. and sufferuig to fhe claimaat/appeUaut eve.n after disabflity certificate of fiie Doctor; fhe Tribuiial has assessed fhe in.coiae on lower side i.e. Rs.6,000/- per ruonfh aad also has not awarded any amount on account of loss of ftiture earrung, fherefore, tbe ainount of coiupensation should be enliaiiced. 7. On the ofher haiid, leamed counsel for respondent No. 3/ New India Insurance Coinpany Limited supported ffae award aud contended fhat the coinpensation ofRs.40,822/- awarded by the Tribunal is just aad proper coinpensation iu the facts aad ctrcumstaiices of fhe present case aad fhere is no chaace for erLhanceinent of fhe award of conipensatioa. \t ^" 8. After perusal of record, it is clear fhat the claunaat was aged about 38 years on ffae date of accident. He was aa Advocate by profession; he was adinitted in the hospital for 4 monfhs; he sustained grievous injuries aad fracture of his left leg. Certam.ly he was not able to do his professional work for about 4 raonths aad sufFered laental agony aad nofhiag has been. awarded on accouat ofpaia and szifferuig by fhe Tribunal 9. On due consideration of fhe subniissions of learaed counsel for tiie pardes aud all fh.e relevaiit factors, includuig the above uientioned broad featiires of fhe case, I am. of the opiruon that furfher award ofRs.21,000/- inclusive ofuiterest coiaponent on fhe enhanced aiuount of coinpensation would m.ake the conipensation of Rs.40,822/- awarded by the Tribunal as just aud proper coinpensation in. the facts aad circunistances of ffae present case. 10. The appeal ffled by fhe appeltaat/claim.ant for enhaiiceDient of fhe coiupensation, therefore, is allowed ia part. The appeUant/claimant is awarded further suia of Rs.21,000/- iuclusive of iaterest component on the enhanced amount of coinpensation, ta additiou to the suin ofRs.40,822/- awarded by the Tribunal. 11. Respondent No. 3- The New India Insuran.ee Coaipauy Limited is graated fhree inonths' tune for depositing fhe sura of Rs.21,000/- before the conceruuig Clauns Tnbunal. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.E. Jhanwar Judge