///" s! K sss- i •.y~-<^, ^ •>>*. 3^f^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J.& HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant ResRondents Misc. Appeal (CLNo. 42 of 2009 Smt. Kamla, wife of Bachan Thakur, aged about 47 years, r/o village Machoud, post Tavera, tahsil and P.S. Gunderdehi, distt. Durg C.G. VERSUS 1 Jamil Khan son of Gulam Khan, caste Musalmaan, aged about 52 years, residence of Sattipara, Ganjpara, Lala Pump Ghoskar, near the house of master, Durg, tahsil and district Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 Durg Transport Private Limited Company, G.E. Road, Durg in front of District Court, Durg, tahsil and district Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Durg, tahsil and district Durg, Chhattisgarh. Memo of appeal under Section 173 of IVIotor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Om P. Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.P. Sahu, counsel on behalf of Shri K.N. Chaturvedi, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER rth (17m0ctober,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. M.A.C.No.42of2009 This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.10.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 129/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.23,60,000/- claimed by claimant Santram Thakur, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 05.06.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,01,270/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Trjbunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending Vehicle Bus bearing registration No.C.G.- 07-ZA/0129,liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the insurer ofthe above offending vehicle Bus has not filed any appeal against the impugned award challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained.by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.30,600/- towards loss in the future earning capacity on account of the permanent disability; Rs.21,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.-12,000/- for loss of studies for one year; Rs.10,500/- for A.C. No.42of2009 attendant; Rs.10,500/- for special diet; Rs.6,667/- for medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- for conveyance; and Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering. The Tribunal, thus, assessed the total compensation at Rs.1,01,267/-, which was rounded off to Rs.1,01,270/- and was awarded to the claimant as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,01,270/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Om P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,01,270/-only. 7) Shri S.P. Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri K.N. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,01,270/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and ctrcumstances of the present case. 8) Claimant Santram Thakur was aged about 22 years on the date of the accident. He was studying in first year I.T.1., Bhilai. Though he pleaded that he used to earn Rs.5,000/- from tuition but no reliable and cogent evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the claimant at Rs.5,000/- per month. 1 .A.C.No.42of2009 9) Claimant Santram Thakur died during the pendency of the appeal on 08.02.2010 and thereafter his mother Smt. Kamla was substituted as appellant in the appeal. 10) Now it is the settled law that the claim case filed by the claimant claiming compensation for his injuries and the appeal for enhancement can be prosecuted by the legal representatives of the claimant only for a limited purpose. In the present case we are satisfied that the sums awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses; attendant; special diet; and conveyance are just and proper and do not call for any enhancement. So far as the sums awarded under other heads i.e. loss of income during the period oftreatment; loss offuture earning capacity on account of the permanent disability; loss of studies; and pain and suffering are concerned, they are not open to challenge in the present appeal on account of the death of the claimant during the pendency of the appeal. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge subbu-