^--cv c.^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTJSGARHAT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C). t-] /2009 (S.B.) APPELLANT Sanmeet Singh Gandffi, S/o Shri Amolak Singh Gandhi, Student, f\^.\fv ' nnni^l nk/Mlt QQ i»/M-im D/n Dnrtinl^! ^j^ j^»*- ^^A v/' ^/ ^^' u ' ' l) 1 1^/IL^II\ ^/II '^11 ^^^»*1^\Ai II ) ^/^WVA^/I I V] '^&^'"' aged about 23 years, R/o Panjabi Colony, .^•""-'^".i .^tvy?*y' ~/;•••• Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District - ^-^^" ,.-^'"' VERSUS ^•^:^^ Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) RESPONDENT Nistar Bhagat, S/o Bhuglu Ram Bhagat, aged about 38 years, Occupation - Constable, Police Department, R/o Tifra, Police Colony, Bilaspur Tahsil and District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) L- .^ ^ »- APPEAL UNDER SECTION W&OF THE MOTOR VEHlCLES ACT, 1988 :^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI^AJESHW^kR LAL JHANWAR, J. AppeUant Respondents M.A.(C). No.245 of 2009 Sanmeet Singh Gandhi Versus Nistar Bhagat. 'SsS^ ORDER Pronouncement of order )&.07.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 245 of 2009 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Sanmeet Singh Gandhi, S/o Shri Amolak Singh Gandhi, Student, aged about 23 years, r/o Panjabi Colony, Dayalband, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District - Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS Nistar Bhagat, S/o Bhuglu Ram Bhagat, aged about 38 years, Occupation - Constable, Police Department, R/o Tifra, Police Colony, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988 Appearance: Shri Akhilesh Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Shri Avinash Sahu appears on behalf of Shri Gautam Khetrapal, counsel for the respondent. ORDER (Passedony.07.2010) •••"•f. Appellant Sanmeet Singh Gandhi is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (in short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 26th August, 2008 passed in Claims Case No. 39/2007. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.1,34,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petitioner under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injury sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.09.2006 near about 8.30 p.m., the s. ^ '';•<. ^"rf^--":^''* ^ ^T "-'^ SL '•' '^^ \ t.JJ' /' Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- and after recording a finding th,at the accident occurred due to contributory negligence by both tflie drivers of the vehicles, awarded 50% of the total sum i.e. Rs.25,OOQ/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest @ 6% per annura from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. ; 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant sustained grievous injury in the motor accident on 28.09.2006 and the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the vehicles and also two vehicles are involved in this case, one Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No. C.G. 10 6453 belonged to the present appellant and another vehicle bearing registration No. M.P. 04 N.H. 1309 belonged to the respondent. The respondent has not filed any appeal against the award of the Tribunal. 4. The Tribunal considering the injury proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount of Rs.25,000/- proved to have been incurred towards treatment awarded Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses and also awarded Rs.5000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment. In addition to the above, the Tribunal also awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering. Thus, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- and after recording a finding that two vehicles belonged to the parties are involved in this case and both the drivers of the vehicles are responsible for contributory negligence, due to which, accident took place, therefore, awarded 50% ofthe awarded amount i.e. Rs.25,000/- to the claimant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding meager amount despite the fact that the claimant had filed disability certificate Ex.P.20 wherein the disability suffered by the claimant is shown as 20% and Doctor has also found the appellant/claimant suffered from 20% /-•-?rr\ '^ T. •V. \ »k •r disability. As against the above, nothing has been placed before the Tribunal by the other side, therefore, the learned Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration that the appellant/claimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20%. Learned counsel for fhe appellant placed a reliance in the matter of Vij'ay Karan Verma v. Abdul Naseem and others, 2003 (1) M.P.H.T. 535 (DB) in which the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has modified the awarded amount to Rs.1,20,000/- from Rs.80,000/-. On these premises, learned counsel urged that the compensadon awarded by the Tribunal be modified or enhanced. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent support the award and argued that the disability suffered by the appellant/claimant is not permanent and is temporary. According to Doctor's evidence, the permanent disability can be reduced to 10% by exercise and further pointed out that no other certificate was produced before the Tribunal after Ex.P.20 which would show that the disability is not reduced to 10%. Therefore, leamed counsel urged that the award passed by the Tribunal does not call interference. 7. In para 11 of the impugned, the learned Tribunal has assessed the evidence of claimant and non-applicant and after seeing fhe spot map Ex'3 came to conclusion that at the place of accident there was a road divider and also found that non- applicant was not in drunken position. It found that the claimant •was driving his vehicle on wrong side and respondent was also driving the vehicle rash and negligently, therefore, the leamed Tribunal has found both the claimant and respondent negligent and the accident took place because of contributory negligence and accordingly awarded. 8. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all the relevant factors including the above mentioned broad features of the case, this Court is of the opinion \'", :\ ^ ^] J' that the Tribunal has rightly assessed Rs.20,000/- for pain and suffering, Rs.25,000/- for medical expenses and Rs.5000/- for loss of income and thus awarded total sum of rs.50,000/- as compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal has also found that the accident occurred due to contributory negligence by the vehicles of both the drivers, and therefore, reduced the awarded amount to 50% i.e. Rs.25,000/-. The Tribunal further directed the respondent to pay Rs.25,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a., which, I am of the view, is just and proper coinpensation and does not call for modification. So far as the above cited case is concerned, it is fully distinguishable on facts of the case and does not help the claimant. 9. For the foregoing reasons and in the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered opinion that the fmdings recorded by the Tribunal are purely on the basis of legal, clinching and reliable evidence and as such I fmd no illegality and irregularity in fhe impugned award. 10. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement is liable to be and is hereby dismissed— Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge