HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH G \ Appellant (Claimant) Smt Parvati Bai, W/o Toran Singh Markam, aged about 30 years, R/o Aamapara Ward, Dhamtari (CG) Versus Suresh Goal, S/o DeendayaL aged about 23 years, R/o Matri Vihar Colony, Dhamtari (CG) Vijay Kumar Asrani Through Dinesh Kumar Asrani, S/o Late Meghraj Bastar Road, Dhamtari (CG) The New India Insurance Company Ltd., GE Road, Power House, Bhilai (CG) Respondents Present : Shri Vimlesh Bajpai and Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for the appellant. Shri SP Sahu, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (19m April, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. h CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J.. & HON’BLE SHRI RL JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 1349 of 2005 Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Appellant/ Claimant Smt Parvati Bai is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 12.08.2005, passed in Claim Case No.624/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,35,000/—, claimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 09.09.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.55,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment in the event of insurer’s failure to deposit the amount of * compensation within 30 days of the passing of the award. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Smt Parvati Bai sustained multiple injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 09.09.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Santro Car bearing registration No.CG-O4-ZD/1 284; as the above offending vehicle Santro Car on the date of the accident was insured with the New lndia lnsurance Company Limited and the lnsurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the lnsurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. a 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings‘recorded by §he Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained hy the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss in future earning capacity on account of the disability; Rs.20,0001— towards medical expenses; and Rs.10,000/— towards conveyance, pain and suffering. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs‘55,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.55,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment in the event of insurer’s failure todeposit the “amount of compensation within 30 days of the passing of the award. 6) Shri Vimlesh Bajpai and Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.55,000/— only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 65%.. 7) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned‘counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Santro Car on the other hand‘ supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.55,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the . facts and circumstances of the present case? ’ ( 8) Claimant Smt Parvati Bai was aged about 30 years 9n the date of the accident. She was labour by occupation. The ciaimant sustained muitiple serious injuries including fracture of her left leg in the motor accident is established from the evidehce of AW2 Dr RS Thakur. lt is a matter of common knowledge that substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. The claimant on account of the fracture of her left leg, could not have performed her duties as labour for a period of 4 to 6 months resulting in monitory loss to her. 9) The Tribunal has certainly fallen into error in not awarding any sum towards loss cf income during the period of treatment and for special diet and attendant. ’10) The compensation of Rs.55,000/— awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 11) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs‘20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just e-and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12) . The appeal med by the appellant/claimant f0; enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component c w on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of (iv ’ Rs.55,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.20,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 14) No order as to costs. Sdl- a ) Sd/— R.L.Jhanwar Chlef o Jusuce; . i ~ Judge : V V7