^l KIGACgURTQfCKHATTBGARiiAT^JlASPU^ .D1VLS1QN.BENCH CORAM: HON*BLE SHRI RAJEEV ©UPTA,CJ & HON'SLE SHRI DHSRENDRA F^ISSHRA, J. Misc. Appeal Icl No.S70 of 2007 APPELLANT Applicant RESPONDENTS Non-appSicants -Govind Prasad Gond, S/o Vijay Gond, aged about' 30 years, driver, R/o Risama, P.S. - Puigaon, Tahsil & District -• Durg _(CLG-l VERSUS United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Bhopa!, M.P. Through: The Branch Manager, Kamptee Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) M/s Divya Steels, Ptot No.9, 10 and 11, Zone-1, M.P. Nagar, Bhopal (M.P.), Through: Mukesh Owner & Radharanl Owner/Partner. APPEAL UNDER SECTJON 173. IVIOTOR VEHSCLE ACT.1988 Present: Shri V.K. Sharma, learned counse! for the appellant. ORDER (18th February,2008) t'f The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant- Govind Prasad Gond is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 1s Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short "the Tribunal") vide .'^. award date^> 30.3.2007, passed in Claim Case No.02/06. ;\ ^ 2. AppeSlant/claimant- Govjnd Prasad Gond ciaimed compensation of Rs.20,00,000/- for the injuries suffered by him ln Ih ^;'HL'~*"~;^"'"-' 2 <z^. the motor accident on 9.7.2005 when his truck bearing registration number CG08-ZC-0392 was dashed by the other truck bearing reglstration number MP04-K-5844 resuiting in multiple serious injuries to the appeilant. The appellant/claimant further pleaded that on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident, he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 55% and is unable to be pursue his occupation of truck driver resulting in monetary loss to him. 3. The owner and the insurer of the truck bearing registration number MP04-K-5844 contested the claim and denied their liability to pay compensation to the claimants. The owner pleaded that the ciaimant himself was responsibie for the accideni, whereas, the insurer took the plea that the truck was being plied in breach of the policy conditions. 4. The appellant / claimant examined himself as AW-1 and AW-2 Dr. Anil Mahakalkar in support of his claim, whereas, the owner and insurer of the other truck did not examine any witoess in rebuttal. 5. The Tribuna! on the evidence led by the parties before it held that claimant Govind Prasad Gond sustained injuries in the motor accident on 9.7.2005; the drivers of both the trucks were eqyally responsible for the accident; as the truck bearing registration num^er MP04-K-5844 was insured on the date of \ accident with United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurance company was liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,18, 500/- i.e. 50% of the compensation assessed by the Tribunal at i^ L- Rs.2.37,000/-. The Tribunat further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,18,500/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition titl the date of actuai payment. 6. Shri V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in hoiding that the appellant was equaily liable for the accident; in awarding low Compensation of Rs.1,18,500/- though the appellant suffered serious injuries in the accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 55%. 7. It is in the evidence that in the accident dated 9.7.2005 both the trucks suffered serious damage, Though the appeilant sustained multiple injuries including fractures in the said accident, the driver of other truck also sustained multiple serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The appellant / claimant adm'rtted in his cross-examinatjon that he was prosecuted by the police for the accident under Section 304-A of the Indian Pena! Code. Since it was a head-on-collusion between two trucks and the driver of other truck died in the accident,we do not find any infirmity in the findings recorded by the Tribunal that the drivers of both the trucks were equally liable for the accident. The assessment of appellant's liability by the Tribunal at 50% also does not call for any interference. \ 8. The pompensation of Rs.2,37,000/- assessed by the Tribunal by awarding a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses and special diet; Rs.50,000/- for pain & sufferings; ^ss^ CZ_\^ Rs.9.000/- for loss of income for three months: Rs.78,000/- towards pecuniary loss on account of permanent disability and Rs.50,000/- towards non-pecuniary loss arising out of the permanent disability, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. We do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that the muttiplier of 13 selected by the Tribunal is also on tMe lower side or that the loss of future earning capacity of the appellant has not been rightly assessed by the Tribunal. 9. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. The appeal filed by the appeJlant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ___, j Sd/- ChiefJustice Subbu/- Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge \ ?•'< \.' ;\