HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR APPELLANT Claimant SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.ACCi(lo.1132of2007 ^ Kamlesh Singh RESPONDENTS Versus Manglu and others. ORDER For Pronouncement of Order ^^ .03.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge r'" @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Ssnale Bench Hon'ble Shri RajeshwarLalJhanw^^^^^ iVI.^O. 1132/2007 Appellant CSalmant ?)sio.1 ResDondents Non-applicants Kamlesh Singh, S/b Nandtat Singh, 26 years, R/o Village Anandi, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Versus 1. Manglu, S/o Dhaniram, 35 years, R/o Vi!lage_kokoda, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 2. Mahesh Kumar Rai, S/o Bhaiyyalai, A.P.O. Borgaon, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) 3. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Through: Branch Manager, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) Appeal underSection 173 ofthe MotorVetiicJes Act Present: Shri Keshav Dewangan on behaif of Shri Prafuil Bharat, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Raj Awasthy, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passed on<^_.03.2011) Appeiiant - Kamlesh Singh is seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Kondagaon, Dist. Bastar (for short 'the Claims Tribunal') vide award dated 30th June, 2007 passed in Claim Case No.47/2007. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.16,96,000/- claimed by the appelianVclaimant by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the Jnjuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.02.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensa'tion to the claimant along with interest at 6%,per annum from the date offiiing of claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3. The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimant Kamlesh sustained injuries in the motor acddent on r 28.02.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drsving of driver of Jeep bearing No. C.G. 19 ZD/0218 (for short "the ofFending vehicle"); as the offending vehicle was, on the date of accident, insured with the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4. As the respondents have not filed any appea! againstthe above findings of the Tribunal, the findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5. Considering the number of and natyre of injuries proved to have been sustained in the motor accident, percentage of disability arising out of injuries and the amount proved to have been spent on his treatment, the Tribunal awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.5000/- to the claimant. The Tribunal, while fastening the liability on respondent No.3, directed it to pay interest at 6% per annum on the above amount of Rs.5000/- from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of actual payment. However, since the appellant has already received Rs.25,000/- under no fault liability, the insurance company was at liberty to recover remaining amount of Rs.20,000/- from the appellant, taking into the compensationof Rs.5000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- which is on lower side'while Dr.Virendra Kumar Jha has already found 65% permanent disability in the appellant's right leg and that Ex.P.9 showing permanent disability to the extent of 65% was issued by the Medical Board. He further argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding a sum under the head loss of future income. On these premises, he urged that compensation of Rs.5000/- awarded by the Tribunai may be enhanced. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company white supporting th6 impugned order submitted that Doctor, who has issued the disability certificate, was not a treating doctor and that the same was issued after a long time. The injured is stiil working as computer operator as before, therefore, the iearned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation and has aiso rightiy ordered for recovery of remaining amount from the appellant. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the Tribunal including impugned order. Dr. Virendra Kumar Jha A.W.2 has, in his evidence, deposed that, after treating the appellant he found 65% permanent disability on right leg of the appellant. He has further deposed that Disability Certificate is Ex.P.9 which was issued by the Medicat Board, Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur. A perusal of Ex.P.9 has ciearly revealed that there was foot drop on his right leg; posteriorly bent with moderate restriction of movement; right knee was found with osteoporosis of bones with old malunited fracture; fracture on shaft fibula bone. He has further deposed that the above injuries sustained by the appellant are not likety to improve. He has also deposed that because of fracture on mal-united bone of Tibia, which is very important, the appellant had to suffer permanent disability on right leg. Thus, it is clear from the above that Certificate to the extent of 65% permanent disability issued by the Medical Board was proved by Dr. V.KJha. Appellant Kamlesh Kumar has also proved all the documents produced by him and has deposed that on the date of accident he was working as Computer Operator in Aisect Computers. He admitted that he did not produce any documents as to his treatment, He has also stated that although he was treated Government Hospital but nothing was given by the hospital concerned, however, he had to spend money for his treatment. It has also come in his evidence that he was admitted in Raipur Medical College Hospital for about 15-20 days and thereafter he was discharged. 9, A perusal of evidence of the appellant has cleariy revealed that he was Computer Operator and due to accident he got fracture on both tibia and fibula bones. Certainly due to said fracture he would have feft uncomfortable in performing duties as computer operator. His leg was plastered and due to that he was not able to perform any work and for treatment he must have certainly spent some money. Mor,e over, as injuries including fracture sustained by the appellant on his right leg are not likely to improve, as is evident from the evidence of Dr. V.KJha A.W.2, it wouid not have been possible for him to attend and perforaLh^ duties as r^ ..^' w computer operator, in future. 1 am of the opinion that the Tribuna! certainly has fallen into error in awarding lower compensation. 10. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all the reievant factors including the above mentioned broad features of the case, 1 am of the opinion that further award of Rs.51,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.5000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and drcumstances of the present case. 11. The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhance of the compensation, therefore, is allowed partly. The appellant/claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.51 ,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation, in addition to the sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Respondent No.3 - the National Insurance Co. Ltd. is granted 3 months' time for depositing the sum of rs.51,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. i R.L. Jhanwar Judge