HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, IHLASy UR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R. L. JiIANWAR, J. Misc. Aooeal (Ct No. 1498/2009 APPELLANTS Durgesh Kiim^v- another. and Versus RESPONDENT (Claimanti Dharampal. ORDER Post for pronouncement on \ August, 2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge •F— .^>'-< IC. \ t^-lj X.. "^^/ • |kiiiiiirriNiut HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 1498 of 2009 APPELLANTS (NON-APPLICANT N0.1) (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) RESPONDENT CLAIMANT 1. Durgesh Kumar, S/o Shri Uday Singh Gond, aged about 20 years, R/o Khongapani, Bhim Dafai, P.S. Chirmiri, Tah. Khadgawan, Distt. Korea (C.G.) 2. Uday Singh, S/o Late Shri Narayan Singh, aged about 45 years, R/o Sonamani Bhim Dafai, P.S. Chirmiri, Tah. Khadgawan, Distt. Korea (C.G.) VERSUS Dharampal, S/o Kanchan, aged about 48 years, R/o Hathwar, Occupation ~ Agriculture, P.S. Patna, Tah. Baikundhpur, Distt. Korea (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MQTOR VEHICLESACT.1988 Appearance: Shri Rahul Mishra, counsel for the appellants. Shri Parag Kotecha, counsel for the respondent. ORDER (Passedon L^ .08.2010) This appeal is directed against the award dated 29.07.2009 passed in Claim Case No. 14/2009 bythe 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Manendragarh (in short (the Tribunal') whereby in an injury case the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.30,000/- to the respondent/claimant. 2. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants/owner has filed this appeal. 3. Brief facts, in a nutshell, are that on 07.09.2007 at about 7.00 p.m. when the respondent/claimant was coming to house with his brother on their scooter bearing registration No.C.G.16 G 6056 (henceforth 'the p ^s^ ') ' scooter'), the appellant No.1, who was driving his motor cycle bearing registration No.C.G.16 - 3702 (henceforth 'the motor cycle') in a rash and negligent manner on Baikunthpur road, hit the scooter thereby causing accident, as a result of accident, both the respondent and his brother fell down and got injuries. Report of accident was lodged against the appellant No.1 at Police Station Khadgawan for the offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 ofthe I.P.C. 4. Claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/- was filed whereby it was pleaded that he was earning Rs.5,0007- from agricultural works, daily labour works and the business of milk; he was aged 48 at the time of incident and due to accident he was unable to attend his routine works. By filing written statement, the appellants (non-applicants before the Tribunal) denied the averments pleaded in the claim petition. 5. After affording opportunity of hearing and hearing the parties, the learned Tribunal has found that the appellant No.1 was negligent for accident, due to which the respondent/claimant - Dharampal sustained fracture of tibia and fibula on his right leg and relying upon document Ex. A.3 produced by the respondenVclaimant, the Tribunal awarded a lump- sum amountof Rs.30,000/- as total compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that in this case, though document Ex.A.3 was produced by the claimant but the doctor concerned was not examined. The learned Tribunal ought not to have relied upon the document Ex.A.3 and X-ray report without recording evidence of concerned doctor. He placed reliance in the matter of Smt Tijiya Bai v. SyedAadil & Ors., AIR 2010 (NOC) 2 (CHH.), Hemlal Satnami v. Ravikant Sahu & Others, 2009 (2) C.G.L.J. 414 (DB), Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, (2008) 7 SCC 305 and A.P.SRTCv. P. Thirupal Reddy, (2005) 12 SCC 189. 7. Oh the other hand, learned counsel for the respondentsupported the impugned award and argued compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. —— .^•^^ r 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and record ofthe Tribunal. 9. Durgesh Kumar Singh (appellant No.1 herein) has deposed that offence punishable under Section 279, 337 and 338 ofthe I.P.C. has been registered against him and charge sheet has also been filed against him in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class in which he admitted his guilt and paid fine. 10. So far as negligence on the part of appellant No.1 is concerned, it has also come in the evidence of Dharampal (respondent herein) A.W.1 that he was going with his brother on the scooter while appellant No.1 was driving the motor cycle rashly and negligently and dashed their scooter, due to that, they fell down and sustained fracture. This witness has also stated that appellant No.1 was charge sheeted by the Khadgawan Police Station and the charge sheet has been filed in the Court of J.M.F.C. Chirmiri where the appellant No.1 admitted his guilt and paid fine. Durgesh Kumar Singh (appellant No.1 herein) also admitted this fact in his deposition. Thus, it is clear that he was negligent in driving the motor cycle on the date of accident and fairly accepted his guilt. 11. So far as compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is concerned, the accident took place on 7.9.2007 and the report of accident was lodged on 8.9.2007 as Ex.A.1 and on 8,9.2007 the respondent/claimant was medically examined and upon examination it is found that the claimant sustained fracture of tibia and fibula of his right leg, according to Ex.A.3 i.e. M.L.C. report. The learned Tribunal has not awarded the compensation on the ground of disability of the claimant but has awarded compensation only for pain and suffering and medical expenses. No doubt, the respondent / claimant would have definitely felt pains and sufferings arising out offracture caused in accident; would have incurred expenses to make good the fracture and would have consumed medicines to cure his fracture. 12. In this case, the evidence of doctor is not necessary because the fracture-sustained by the claimant is clear from the evidence of Dharampal A.W.1. TheM.L.C. report Ex.A.3 was also done immediately after the accident. It is also clear that when that document Ex.A.3 was admitted in j^rv evidence as exhibit, at that time no objection was made by the appellants, therefore, M.L.C. report is admitted in evidence which shows the fracture sustained by the claimant. It is also clear from the evidence of Durgesh Kumar Singh that he has admitted the guilt under Section 279, 337 and 338 of the I.P.C. and was sentenced to fine, which he has already paid. This also shows that the appellant - Durgesh Kumar is negligent while driving the motor cycle and because of his negligence the claimant sustained fracture on his right leg. Therefore, the evidence of doctor is not necessary in this case. It is also evident in the impugned order that no award was passed on the ground of disability. Taking all these facts into consideration the Tribunal awarded total lump-sum of Rs.30,000/- as total compensation, which in this case isjust and proper compensation. 13. In the above citations cited by the learned counsel for the appellant, the facts are different from the facts of the present case since in those cases the disability certificate has been produced but doctor has not been examined. The learned Tribunal has disbelieved the disability certificate. The facts in the above citations are fully distinguishable on the ground of facts and circumstances of this case. Taking the document into consideration, the Tribunal has rightly awarded lump-sump compensation of Rs.30,0007- to the respondent / claimant,which 1 am of the considered view that the Tribunal did not commit any error in awarding lump-sum compensation. 14. In the result, the appeal has no merit. It is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed to the extent indicated above. __-——— Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge