<s) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SinaleBench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. .1. Apoellant Claimant Resoondents M.A.(C).No.1470ff007 Bisahu Ram Baghet,S/o Shri Khedu Ram Baghel, aged about 30 yeare, R/o 5-Ma^|, Anand Chow, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil and Disbict Durg, (C.G.) Versus 1. Narottam Prasad Wshwakarma, S/o Johan Lal Vishwakarma, aged about 34 years, R/o Village Susari, P.S. Utai, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Driver of offending Vehicle NO.C.G.7/T/0657) 2. Smt. Punni Bai, W/o Jeevan Ram, R/o Village Near Faridragar Radhikanagar, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Owner of said Vehicte) 3. Branch Manager, The United tnsurance Company Limited, Branch Power House, Bhilai, Tara Complex, G.E. Road, Distrtat Durg(C.G.) (Insurer of said Vehicle) APPEAL UNDER SECTKiN 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 Preserrt: Appellant by Shri Vinod Tekam, Advocate. Respondent No.3 by H.B.Agrawal, Senior Advocate with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate. None appeare for Respondent No.1 . Respondent No.2 unserved <WALORDER (Passed on 18.07.2008) The appeal is finally heard today. 2. The 11th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg (henceforth the Tribunal') in Claims Case No. 138/2006 by award drted 23.08.2007 awarded compensatfon of Rs.1 ,03,500/- in a case where the appellant/claimant had sustained permanent disability to the extent of 25% due to the accklent. ^sasQs^ k v:as!y J / v '"'^'^/ g-- 3. Brief facte are that on 23.12.2004, the claimant was riding a scooter. He was hit by a Minidor Mahendra Champion No.C.G. 07 T/0657 being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner. The appeltant/claimant sustained muttiple fractur®of left 5 and ^ ribs, right fracture of medial malleolus and communtted fracture of upper shaft with overriding of fragments, fracture of acetabular. The claimant was examined by the Medtesat Board. On 26.02.2005, a certificate of 40% temporary disability was given. Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav, A.W.3 was member of the Board. On 14.8.2007, the claimant was again examined by Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav and it was opined that the claimant had suffwed 25% permanent disability. The appellant/claimant adduced evidence before the Tribunat that he was a driver by profession »iddue to the accident, he had become permanently incapaciated to dme any vehtele. Medical evidence of Dr. Akhilesh Kumar Yadav A.W.3 was atso adduced. 4. The Tribunal awarded compensation as under: A) Expenses towards treabnert of the claimant. B) Nourishing, diet, attendant and conveyance charges. C) Lossofincome. D) Physical and mental pain. E) Permanent disability. Total: Rs.24,500.00 Rs. 8,000.00 Rs.15,000.00 Rs. 6,0(X).00 Rs.50,000.00 Rs.1,03.500.0) 5. The sote ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellanVclaimant is that amount Rs.15000/- awarded by the Tribunal under the head loss offuture income is too meager in view ofthe fact ttiat evidence adduced by the claimant cleariy proved thatthe claimant was a driver and had become permanentty incapaciated to drhre any vehtete in future. rfsBa"Ss '^ [^ -s- 6. Shri H.B.^irawal, learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the rsspondent No.3 argued in support ofthe impugned award. 7. Having heard rival coirtenfions, 1 have perused the record and the documentary evidence adduced by the claimant. 1 am <rf the considered opinion that due to the accident the cfaimant had suffered permanent disability to the extent of 25%. Consklering the nature <rf injuries sustained by the claimant and the permanent disability suffered by him, the claimant had become permanently incapaciated from driving any vehicte throughout his life. In this view of the matter, 1 am of the consklered opinion, an additional sum of Rs.50,000/- ought to have been awarded to the claimant under the head loss of income. 8. In the resutt, the appeal is allowed. Inpanialmodiflcationofttieawwd passed by the Tribunal, compensation of Rs.1,53,500/- is awarded to the claimant. _ g^y. ' Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh 'ii Judge ^-Q|c?in\. u