iint'e s-Ea 1G CHANDRAKAR,, Appeilant eiaimant Kumari Heena, D/o Late Ramchandra, ~^gedabout 10 yeare, minor, through : Natura! guardian—Mother, Smt Kamla, widow of Late Ramchandra, resident of irikpal, Post Malgopn, Police Station - Jagdaipur, Distt Bsstar (CG) Ndn-applicanSs Gurudev singh, son of Late G.haran Singh, R/o Gandhi Nagar Ward, Jagdalpur (GG) (Vehicle Owner Truck No.C©17ZG/0537) Sanju Kumar Sonwani, son of Shiv Na-ayan Sonwani, resident of Qangamunda, PS Bodhghat, JagdaSpur, Distt Bastar (CG) (Driver of ttie.Truck) Uniteci - india Insyrance Company, through : Branch Manager, Branch Jagdalpur, Djstt Bastar (CG) (insurer of t&eTruck) IVliscellaneouis ftBpeai under Section 173 bf Present : ShriSubhashYadav,learriedcounselfor|the appeliants. ' :1:, , ^. ^•.::: ,.,: . .; ' :—(' ."• . ' . ;'..'';'.. • . .' : NoneforrespondentsNo.land Ztlioughserved. • Shri Abhishek Sintia and Shri G& f3ate|, eoi.Kisel for respondent.No.3.'. • |', • l: 8B»-.. 5^-At- ORDER >th (29" September, 2010) The follQwing order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta, G.J. This is claimant's appeal for enhaneement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.07.2004, passed in Claim Case No.37/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,55,000/-, ciaimed by the appellant/daimant, by filing a claim petition through her mother SmS temla under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for th'e injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 26.08.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,000/- as eompensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filir.g of the elaim petition til 1 the date of actual payment. 3$ The Tribunal on a e!6se scrutiny of the entireevidence led before it held that claimant Kum Heena sustained multiple injuries in the motor accident on 26.08.2002:theaecident oocurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist of the motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-17/B/2033; as the above offending ./'.'•. '.' '.'•• : •• • • • '. . • . '. ••- vehicle on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Company CQuld not established any breach of the policy condjtions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. . , iiAte:C •^•^w^,' '-SrfP' if 's^"^'ss:''' 'sy^afe^^i^DSffii^^^^ ^K^'^^^'S^^S'. °K W 4) As the respondents have not fiied any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal Gonsidering the num'oer and nature of the injuries proved to have beensustalned by the ciaimant in the motor accident;and the amount proved to have been spentoo treatment, awarded a lump sum 'of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the claimant, The Tribunal furtherdirected payment of interest on the above amountof compensation of Rs.15,000/- @ 9% per annum from thedate ofthe filing ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual paymenf. 6) Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel for^the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensatipn of Rs.15,000/- only, though the appeiiant/claimant sustained multipleserious injuries including fraetures in the motor accident resuiting in permanent disability to the extent of 45%. 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha.and ShriGS patel, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United India InsuranceCompany Limited on the other hand supported the award and contehded that the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and propercompensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. , 8) Claimant Kum Heena was-aged about 10 yearson the date of the accident. She w?as a student of 6th standard. The evidence of AW/3 Dr LL Thakur establishes that the claimant sustained fracture of riaht leg in the motor acoident. It is a aifferent matter ^ti.t'X- ."% VBf^y^ ::5^' £^ ^-•'.'"ls Bi m 4 that hisevidence couid not establish that the permanent disability resulting from the fracture ofher right leg would remain forwhole of her iife. !t is a matterof common knowiedge that substantial amount is required to spent on Sreatment of the fractures. The claimant obviously must havesuffered physical pain on account of fractureof her right leg for a period of 3-4 months. 9) The compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunat when examined in the context of the above mentiohed broad features of the case, in our opinion, is eertainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 1Q) Considering all the relevant aspectsofthe matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.20,000/- inclusive or interest component on theenhanced amount of compensation wouid make the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensati.on in the facts and circumstances of the presentcase. 11) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement ofthe compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded furthersum of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component in addition to the sum of Rs.15,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. '/' : ':...' '. . . '. ' ' • ••.'•' '• '•...'.' "- 12) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.20,000/- before the eoncerning CiaTms Tribuna!. 131 Noorderastocosfs. :.-\ Sd/-::' . ^: ,) CliiefJustice sd/- R.N. Chaadrakar Ju^ge S-iv •^gK.:- •^p .m