'^'^5^^^ .^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'bie Shri Ju'stice R. L. Jhanwar, fVI.A.fC)No.887of2007 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Smt. Pritam Sahu Versus Rajendra Kumar and another. ORDER For Pronouncement of Order \\^ .03.2011 Sd/- R.L.Jhanwar Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR SinaieBench : Hon'ble Shri R-L.Jhanwar, J. Miscetlaneous Appeat (ClNo^887^2P07 AjaBeUant Rescpndents Smt. Pritam Sahu, W/o Kamalesh Sahu, Aged about 35 years, R/o Viiiage Kopara, Tahsil - Rajeem, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) versus Rajendra Kumar, S/o Kapil Ram Sahu, aged about 32 years, R/o Village Kosagandi, P.S. Guru, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Branch Manager, The Orientai Insurance Company Limited, Baiak Chowk, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 .Present : Smt. M. Asha, counsei for the appeilant. Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Sudhir Agrawat, counsel for respondent No.2 2. (Passed on \ Vi March, 2011) Heard finaliy. This appeal is directed against the award dated 27 February, 2007 passed by Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribunai, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunai') in daim case No.9/2006, whereby a sum of Rs.36,100/- has been awarded towards compensation ih an injury case. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.12,50,000/- claimed by the appeliant by filing ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by the appejlant in the motor accident, the Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence, materiai piaced and respective submissions by fhe parties, holding that the appeilant sustained injuries due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Hero Honda motor cycie bearing No. C.G. 05 A 4245 (for short 'the motor cyc!e'}, found contributory negiigence on the part of both the drivers of motor cycle and scooter being No.C.G. 04-3811 being run bythe husband ofthe appellant; as the motor cycle was insured with respondent No.2 / insurance company, the insurance company was aiso iiable to pay compensation. 4. As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the impugned award, the findings recorded bythe Tribunal have now attained finatity. 5. The Tribunal, considering the nature and number of injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on the treatment accepted the pleadings of the claimant and awarded Rs.44,200/- towards expenses incurred in medical treatment; Rs.5000/- towards pain and sufFering; Rs.5000/- towards special diet and miscellaneous expenses and determined loss of future income at Rs.18,000/-. !n this manner, the Tribunal worked out total compensation of Rs.72,200/- and since there was contributory negiigence on the part of both drivers of the vehicles, the appellant was held entitied to receive Rs.36,100/- as totai compensation for the injuries sustained by her ih the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed the respondents to pay amount of compensation of Rs.36,100/- jointly and severally with interest at 6% per annum from the date of flling of claim petition till realization of amount. Aggrieved therewith, the appel'ant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appeilant vehemently argued that the Tribuna! has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.36,100/- whereas the appeilant was earning Rs.7000/- per month by running C.D. Cassette shop. The Tribunal has further erred in awarding Rs.5000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5000/- special diet and misc. expenses and Rs.18000/- towards loss of future income whereas the appellant was unabie to perform her duties for some time due to injuries sustained by her in the motor accident. On these premises, learned counse! urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribuna! may be enhanced suitabiy. 7. On the other hand, iearned counsel for respondent No.2/insurer argued in support ofthe impugned award. —___ Ii;;.I -•?!es:aass% .d^j !<s 8. In order to appreciate the arguments, 1 have perused the record and impugned order. A perusal of record has cleariy revealed that the appellant met with accident on 22.12.2004 due to collision between the feyo vehicles in which she received injuries. Upon examination by Dr. Iqbal Pervez A.W.4, it was found that there was wrong joint between the bones of right fibula and tibia and her right leg was shortened by 2 cm. and aiso that there was no movement on her heei and knee. It has come in the evidence of Dr. Iqba! Pervez A.W.4 that the appellant suffered 30% permanent disabi!ity. A perusal of Ex.P.10 which is disability certificate aiso shows that the appellant suffered 30% permanent disability due to shortening of leg. It has aiso come in his evidence due to such permanent disability; the appellant may face difRculty in performing her household duties. 9. Definitely due to accident the appellant received multiple injuries; due to accident she remained admitted in Dhamtari Christian Hospital for some time and thereafter she was referred to ^rasen Hsopitai, Raipur for getting best treatment; her leg was shortened by 2 cms, as is eyident from Ex.P.10, which was also proved by Dr.lqba! Pervez A.W.4; she must have spent substantial amount for her treatment and has to suffer throughout her entire life physically and mentalty due to permanent disability and she may face difRculties in doing her household duties. It is a matter of common knowledge that some amount has been substantially spent on her treatment. 1 am ofthe opinion that the Tribunal certainly has fallen into error in awarding lower compensation. 10. On due consideration of the submissions of tearned counsel for the parties and all the relevant factors inciuding the above mentioned broad features of the case, i am of the opinion that further award of Rs.24,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.36,100/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. The appea! filed by the appeliant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed partly. The appellant/claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.24,000/- inclusive of interest component on the ^25; enhanced amount of compensation, in addition to the sum of Rs.36,100/- awarded by the Tribunai. 12. Respondent No.2 - the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted 3 months' time for depositing the sum of Rs.24,000/- before the \\ concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. ', Sd/- ! R.L.Jhanwar Judge