\QO HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR D.B.. Hon’ble Mr. Sunil Kumar Sinha 85 Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Chandrakar, JJ. ‘ (Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act) Appearanc : Mr. S.S. Rajput and Mr. Anant Bajpai, Advocates for the appellant/ claimant. None for respondents 1 85 2. Mr. Shree Kumar AgraWal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand Gupta, Advocate for respondent No.3 a M.A. No. 1328 of 2005 ‘ Appellant Claimant Kamlesh Thakur, 'Aged about 25 years, S / o Kaliram Thakur Occupation— Driver, Caste Gond, R/o Village- Chhote Birejhar, P.S. Ghumka, P.O. Bade Tekri, Tah. 85 Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) presently at Tatibandh, P.S. Amanaka, Distt. Raipur (CG) Versus Respondents Non-Applicants 1 Noor Alam Khan, aged about _24 years, S/o Jahangir Khan, R/o Panchkuda Bazar, Distt. Mednapore, West Bengal present Address: C/O’ Smt. Phuliya Devi, Mohalla — Jahnda, Kharagpur Distt. Mednapore, (W.B.) Smt. Phuliya Devi, W/o Sahadar Yadav, age ~ no’t known, R/o Near Raja lcecream Factory, Ward No. 4, P.S. Kharagpur, Distt. Mednapore (W.B.) United India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Officer, Krishna Complex, Kuchehery Chowk, Raipur (CG) 2 M A7 Nn. 1328 of2005 ORDER (17.01.2011) Following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. '(1) The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 46/2004 by the Eleventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur (CG) Vide award dated 30th July, 2005. (2) The appellant/claimant filed a Claim Petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.11,80,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 6.1.2004. The appellant/ claimant contended that he was working as driver and was earning Rs.4,000/- per month. On account of accident, he sustained multlple injuries includlng mult1p1e fractures and was hospitahzed from 6 l 2004 to 28 1 2004 The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of evidence led before it, held that the appellant sustained 3-4 fractures on his different bones; he was hospitalized for a reasonably long period; he incurred huge amount on his treatment; and he also suffered loss of income. The Tribunal awarded Rs.65,000/— on account ’of expenditure incurred on treatment; Rs.6,000/- for loss of earning for 3 months; and Rs.10,000/- for pain and suffering. The Tribunal thus awarded a total sum of Rs.8l,000/- as compensatign to the appellant/ claimant for the injuries sustained’by him in the motor accident on 6.1.2004. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the /\‘ ‘E‘x IL , 3 MVA‘ N0. 1328 0f2005 rate of 6% per annum from the date of tiling of the Claim Petition till the date of actual payment. (3) Mr. S.S. Rajput and Mr. Anant Bajpai, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, vehemently argue that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant, the Tribunal has not awarded proper compensation. They also argue that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards loss of future earning capacity, special diet, conveyance and attendant. They pray for suitable enhancement in quantum of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal. (4) On the other hand, Mr. Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Sr. Advocate with Mr. Anand Gupta, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No.3, oppose these arguments and supports the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. He contended that a just and proper compensation have been awarded to the appellant. (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. (6) By the medical certificate (ExJ-P/36) issued by Dr. A.A. Saifi (AW-3) and the X—ray reports filed before the Claims‘ Tribunal, we gather that the appellant had suffered fractures on his femur, right patella, left humorous and right tibia. Ex;—P/36 further shows that nails were used for the fracture of femur of the appellant. The appellant was a driver. We feel that looking to the t 4 M.A. N0. 1328 of2005 above injuries sustained by the appellant, his future earning capacity would certainly be affected. On a close scrutiny of entire award, we find that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards the loss of future earning capacity of the appellant. The Tribunal has simply awarded Rs.6,000/— on account of loss of income which the appellant suffered for 3 months during the course of his treatment. Therefore, we are of the View that the appellant must get Rs.21,000/~ towards loss of his future earning capacity. (7) Besides the above, we also find that the Tribunal has not awarded any amount for special diet, conveyance and attendant which the appellant must have required during the course of his _ treatment for the above fractures sustained by him in the motor accident. Looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant and the fact that he was admitted in the hospital for a reasonably long period and further that he must have visited the places of Doctors so many times even after his discharge from the hospital, we deem it appropriate to award Rs.15,000/- under the above heads to the appellant. The appellant is thus entitled to receive a sum of, Rs.36,000/— in addition to Rs.81,000/- as enhanced amount of compensation for the injuries sustained by him 'in the motor ’ accident on 6. 1.2004; K. (8) To avoid further complications and looking to the delay caused in disposal of the Claim Petition as also the claimant’s appeal and that the Insurance Company alone cannot be blamed r\»7 for such delay, we deem it appropriate to quantify the interest on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.36,000/—, which we quantify as Rs.4,000/ — in this matter. 5 M.A. No. 1328 0f2005 vatti (9) Therefore, the appellant is entitled to receive a sum of Rs.40,000/~ more (Rs.36,000/- as the enhanced amount of compensation and Rs.4,000/— as the amount of quantified interest on the enhanced amount), which he shall receive from respondent No.3. (10) Respondent No.3 is granted 3 months time to deposit the said amount with the concerned Claims Tribunal, failing which, this amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date commencing after completion of period of 3 months till its realization. (11) The appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. There shall be no orders as to the cost. Sd/— ’ .~R.N. Chandr‘akar > Judge ' m J Q Sd/— Sunil Kumar Sinha § Judge i.1, ‘r i r i J J\ U ?