-y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 345 of 2010 Appellant/ : Hemraj Sahu, aged about 30 years, Claimant son of Bhaiya Ram Sahu, driver, r/o Bhatagaon, P.S. Purani Basti, tahsil and district Raipur C.G. VERSUS Respondents Non-applicants Kalucharan Patro, aged about 23 years, s/o Mahendra Patro, driver, r/o village Roudu, P.S. Gugda, district Ganga, Orissa. Paval Singhaniya, son of D.P. Singhaniya, Business Managing Director, Trade Wheel Corporation, ZZ-2, Civil Township, Rawerkela, Syndargarh. Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager, Branch Fire, Brigade Chowk, Raipur C.G. Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicIe Act. Present: Shri A.L. Singraul, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sourabh Sharma, and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ^th (26InAugust,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ^""^y YSy MACNo. 345 of 2010 ^ AppellanV claimant Hemraj Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 10th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 23.02.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 165/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 19,50,0007- claimed by the appellant/claimant, byfiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 05.02.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.28,076/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Qualis bearing registration No.O.R.-14-J/1881, liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Qualis has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal 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 spent on treatment, awarded Rs. 10,5767- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,500/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.2,000/- for special diet and conveyance. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.28,076/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further 'rf^.,.^ ^v:^^^ ^ / .^ MACNo. 345 of 2010 c^ directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.28,076/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.28,076/- only though the appellanV claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture in the motor accident. 7) Shri Sourabh Sharma and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Qualis, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.28,076/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 8) Claimant Hemraj Sahu was aged about 30 years on the date of the accident. He was driver by occupation. The claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture of his left humerus bone is borne out from the evidence available on record. It is a matter of common knowledge that substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fracture. The claimant, being a driver, could not have performed his duties as driver on account of the fracture of his left humerus bone for a period of 4-6 months, resulting in monitory loss to him. 9) The compensation of Rs.28,076/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad :,^^y^^ .^'/ '"^^' 4 MACNo. 345 of 2010 z^ features of the case, in our opinion, is somewhat on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 10) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.11,000/- inclusive of interest component on theenhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.28,076/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.11,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.28,076/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12) Respondent No.3 the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.11 ,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 13) No order as to costs. — nimmi Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ji