''i^.v i^^^^^^^^S^^^^^^^^^ 'S?^i'.\SS^' '^:^!SiS9?t,h^.s:S^S'^m.vvsSSSf'S! IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.) ' MISC. APPEAL fCV NO.^'^ OF 2010 ®tec,feRt; APPELLANT Claimant ,0-^ RJt-s"^s^^ 'S^S-^^^"" NON-APPLICANTS: ^—1. ^ Santram, S/o Late Dhanush Ram Sahu, aged about 21 years, Occupation Raj Mistri, R/o Village Bargahi, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS Rajendra Singh, S/o Sunder Lal Kanwar, aged about 32 years, Occupation - Driver, R/o Village Kalkasa, Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) S.K. Mishra, S/o R.P. Mishra, aged about 72 years, R/oNew Civil Line, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) The National Insruance Company Limited, kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Clajmed beforeTribunal Amount awarded by the learned Tribunal Claimed in this Memoof Appeal : Rs. 3,34,000/- : Rs.80,037/- : Rs. 2,53,963/- , MISCELI-ANEOUSAPPEALUNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTiSGASH AT BILASPUR .A.(C)No.12080F Clai RESPONDENTS Santram, S/'o Late Dhanush Ram Vereys Rajendra Slngh and others. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEH!CLEACT, 198S (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal, J.) Present : Mr. Abhishek Sharma, counsel for the appellant. iVlr. Keshav Dewangan, counsel for respondents No. 1 12. r. P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3 (01.09.2011) Heard on i.A. No.1/2010, which is an application for condORation ofdelay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration, 1 am satisfied that the appellant is succeeded in explaining the cause of delay in filing the appeal and, therefore, the application {I.A. No.1/2010} is allowed. Delay in the filing the appeal Is condoned. 3. With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. 4. This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal) passed in Claim Case No. 119/2009 vide its award dated 30.3.2010. 5. As against the compensation of Rs.3,34,000/- claimed by the appellant/ciaimant by filing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident dated 8.5.2009, learned Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.80,037/- as compensation along wlth interest @ 6 % per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. ."-^. s '•AA „( 'ss' 6. Learned Tribunaf, on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence led, held: the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of offending vehicie bus bearing registration No. CG-08-ZA 3035; appeltant/ciaimant sustained multiple injuries in the said acddent; respondent No 3/insurance Company is liable for payment of compensation as it coutd not establish the vioiation of poiicy conditions; assessed and awarded aforesaid amount of compensation to the appellant/claimant against the respondents. 7. Learned counsei appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit: the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering, special diet and attendant and thus has erred in awarding low amount of compensation. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearlng for the respondents supported the award and submitted that in the facts & circumstances of the case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonabie and does not call for any interference. 9. t have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material avaiiable on record including impugned award. 10. Appellant/ciaimant did not examine treating doctor to prove the injuries and to prove the resultant disabiiity nor did examine any person from Sharda Hospital to prove the medicai expenses. Even though learned Tribuna! has awarded a sum of Rs. 36,537/- alleged to be spent by the appellanVclaimant in his medica! treatment. Learned Tribunal has further awarded Rs.3,000/- for special diet, attendant and pain and suffering; Rs.1,500/- tovsrards conveyance; Rs.9,000/- tow.ards loss of income during treatment and Rs.30,000/- for disability/ future !oss of income. 11. The appellant has obtained medical disability certificate after three months. The disability certificate issued was valid only for one year. As per statement of Dr. Rajesh Sadani (AW-3), the stlffness of right knee of the appeltant may be cured by regular physiotherapy.. Appellant's disability is required to be re-assessed after one year. ....-y" ^'^--'..^-AAftbSW'. F^fiK.. e^ee ^..^i. i^^.. 12. In view of above evidence, l do not find any scope for enhancement of compensation on the head of future loss of earning capaclty. 13. Nevertheless, the amount awarded towards special diet, attendant, pain and suffering as Rs.3,000/- is somewhat on lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 14. The amount of compensation of Rs.80,037/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in.the context of above brought features of the case, in the considered opinion of this Court, further award of Rs.10,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the amount of compensation as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 15. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, appeat is ailowed in part. The appellant/claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.10,000/- inciuslve of interest component in addition to the amount awarded by fhe Tribunai. Award is modified to the above extent. Rest of the conditions mentioned in the award shall remain intact. 16. The respondent No. 3/lnsurance Company is granted three months time to deposit enhanced amount of compensatjon of Rs.10,000/- before the concerned Claims Tribunal._ 17. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K.Agarawal Judge ^