HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. v? Misc. ApReal No. 206 of 2006 Appellant : Smt. Vimla Shrivastava, w/o Claimant Sachidanad Shrivastava aged about 56 years r/o. vill. Kakret, P.0. Oyerchak P.S. Seyadraja, district Chandoli (U;P.) At present Mathura Nivas Naya Sarkanda, Bilaspur Post Sarkanda, tahsil & district Bilaspur C.G. t VERSUS Respondente Rajkumar Mall, s/o Shri S.N. Mall aged about 30 years r/o. Bandhawapara, Hemunagar P.S. Torwa, tah. & district Bilaspur C.G. State of Chhattisgarh through the Collector Bilaspur C.G. Proprietor Health Services Govt. of Chhattisgarh Raipur C.G. Omprakash, s/o Jagdish Prasad Sharma "Shastri", aged 30 years R/o. Mathura Nivas, near Mrida and Bhu-Sarvekshan Office, Bandhawapra, Naya Sarkanda, Bilaspur tahsil and district Bilaspur C.G. Memo pf appeal under Section 173 of IVIotor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Additional Advocate General with Shri SanjeeyAgrawal, Panel Lawyer, forthe State/ respondents No.2 and 3. Shri Ramakant Pandey, counsel for respondent No.4. 'tsB ^' jSy fES?. (f7 ORDER (21st November, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by N.K. Agarwal, J. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.02.2005, passed in Claim Case No. 105/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 10,09,7707- claimed by ( claimant Smt. Vimla Shrivastava, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 20.05.1998, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.72,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% perannum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Smt. Vimla Shrivastava sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident on 20.05.1998; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Jeep bearing registration No.M.P.02/2648; assessed and awarded the aforesaid sum as compensation in fevour ofthe appellant and as against respondents No.2 and 3. 4) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant would submit: looking to the disability proved by the appellant the amount of compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal ,,'^'sss. ^ '^ on account of permanent disability is somewhat pn the lower side which deserves to be enhanced suitably. 5) On the other hand, Shri Kishore Bhaduri, learned Additional Advocate General with Shri Sanjeev Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer for respondents No.2 and 3, supported the award and submitted : looking to the fact that the appellant is aged about 60 years and the fact that treating doctor was not examined, the amount of compensation of Rs.30,000/- towards her permanent disability is somewhat on the higher side, It was further submitted that the amount awarded under other heads, which is also not disputed by the appellant, is also just an^ reasonable and therefore, the award impugned dogs not call for any interference. 6) We haveheard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records ofthe Tribunal including the award impugned. 7) The appellant is aged about 60 years and as per the finding of the Tribunal she is not an earning member. As per the discharge certificate (Ex.P/11) appellantsustained fracture of humerus bone. The appellant filed the certificate of the non-treating doctor, G.L. Arora (Ex.P/77). As per his opinion, the disabilityof one part of the body is t6 the extent of 30%. Non-applicants also filed the disability certificate of the appellant (Ex.NA-1) in which the disability due to Stiffness in the shoulder has been shown 20% which is also of one part ofthe body, however, it is not clear from Ex.NA-1 whetherthe disability suffered by the appellant is permanent or temporary. "%. %.& 8) The Tribunal, looking to the injuries systained by the appellant in the said accident has awarded Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses, present and future; Rs. 30,000/- loss of income; Rs. 3000/- towards loss of life; Rs. 2000/- towards attendant; Rs.1000/- for special diet and Rs.1,500/- for conveyance and thus awarded a total sum of Rs.72,500/-. 9) When the amount of compensation of Rs.72,500/-awarded by the Tribunal is examined in the context of above mentioned broad features of the case and the fact that the alleged disability is not a disability of the whole body; treating doctor was not examined and the appellant is non-earning member and was aged about 60 years at the time of accident, in our opinion, the amount awarded by the tribunal is just and proper compensation and does not call for any interi'erence by this court. 10) 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 dismissedand is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. ___—— SdA ~-—: Sd/- ^K.Agar^ai i Raagaath Chandrakar rv '^•f raju