.« CORAM: HQN'BLE SI-lRi RAJEEV GUPTA, C.4. CSaimsnt Non-applleants SATHC .J Kumari Natasha, D/o Shri Maniram Kashyap, aged about 11 years, minor, th'rough: Naturai guardian - Father, Manlram Kashyap, son of Bhursuram Kashyap, aged 40 years, resident of Erikpai, Post iylalgoon, Policfi Ststlon Jagdaipur, Distt. Bastar (CG). VERSUS ;C3yrudeM Singh, son of Late Charan :SingR,^i-f%;Gandhi.!,.Nag^V^ yag<|alpur,,fe(^'r^ehi^le'Q^ner^Truck No,Ci:!li'7ZC/OS37) Sanju K^ ; of Shiv Nara^n Sonwrani^ % resic!ent Gangamynda, ^ PS Bodhghat, Jagdalpyr, Distt Bastar (CG) (Driver of the Trucki United India Insyrance Company, throygh : Braneh. Manager, Braneh Jaadalpur, Distt Bastar(CG) (insurer thsTruck) .^ Present : Shri SubhashYadav, learnedcounseiforthe appellant. ; • ^ •' : :' ,/• ' :' ;: ; :i':;: None for respondents No;1 and 2. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri GS i Patel, Gounsel for responderrtNo.3. ; •' : •'i^Si&k '§ :^s/ >th The following order of the Court was oassed by This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (forshort 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 19.07.20Q4, passed in Glaim Case No.38/2003. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.11,23,000/-, claimed by the appellant/Glaimant, by fiiing a claim petition under'Seetion 166 ofthe Motor VetiiGies Act, ror the injuries sustained by her in the motor accidenton^.OS;2QQ2; the Tribunal awardedja tota! sum of Rs.60,000/- ascompensation along with interest @ 9% perannum from the date of the filing of the claim petition titl the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a clpse scrutiny of the entire evidence ied before it held t'nat claimarit Kumari Natasha sustained muitiple injuries in the motor accident on 26.08.2002; fhe accident'occurred due to rash and nealigent drivina of She driver of the offendina vehicieTruckbearingregistrationNo.CG-17,'ZC/0537;astheabove f .'...•: • •••••.:••.•'•":•••• -\ ' • ' •:. • • ' •••'•.._:... offending vehicie TrucK on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Llmited, and the insurance Company eould not establish any breach of the poiicy conditibns,the tnsuranceCompanvwasljabIetQpaYcon-ipensation to the claimant. f"Ea. M •s.-s^ jj '&^y •;-: v'" 4) Asthe respondents have not filed any appealagainst the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attainedfinaiity. , 5) Thfe Tribunal consjdering the number and nature of the injuries proved tb have been sustained bythe claimant in the motor accident; and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss of efficiency and earning < capacity on account of the permanent disability resulting from the injuries; Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses; and Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by her in the motor acckient. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of eompensation of Rs.60,000/- @ 9% perannum from the date ofthe filing of the claimpetitiontillthedate.ofactualpayment. 6) Shri Subhash Yaday, learned counsel for the appeilant t •• • . . .. - • vehemently argued thattheTribunalhaserred in awarding low compensation of Rs.60,000/- only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multipleserious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resuitirrg in permanent disability to the extent of 50%. /•;..'. • . •-• . ".; .' •• '.... • . "''". '•'.;'. . .: ." ;' • :-''..: '.. . 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri GS Patei, iearned counse! for respondent |No,3 the United India Insurance Company Limited on 1 • f the other hand supported the awaret and contended that the Gompensatipn of Rs.60,QOO/- awarded by the Tribunal isljust and propereompensation in the factsand cireumstances ofthepresent case. 9 '•Ki^ fl 8) Ciaimant Kumari Natasha w/as aged about 11 yearson the date of the accident. She was a student of 7 stap.dsrd. The eyidence of AW/3 Dr LL Thakur estabiishes that claimant Natasha sustained fractureof her right ieg in the motor accident. it isa matter ofcommon knowledge that substantiai amount is required to spenton treatment ofthe fraetures. The ciaimant obviousiy must have suffered physical pain on account of fraciure of her right leg foraperiodof3-4months. 9) The compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in thecontext of the above mentioned broad features of the cgse, in;eui-?opinion, is certainlv on the lower side and deserves to be enhaneed suitably. 10) Consldering alt the relevant aspectsofthe matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest componenton the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal asjust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) The ^Ppeai filed by the appellant/claimant for enhahcement of the compensation, therefore; is allowed in part. The ciaimant js awarded furthersumof Rs.20,000/- inciusive of interest component onthe enhanced amount of compensation. in addition to the sum of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunai. . 'SSss.-S: iS^. :^;: .•i3^s^. ••^:; !|ig| siSII '^i^ ^. .^ •••.-••f 12) Respondent No.3' the United india Insurance Company Limited is granted threewonths' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.2Q,OQO/- beforefheconcemingGlajms Tribunal: 131 No order as tocosts. ',,v1'. Sd/- ^, CltiefJusticie Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge .!Bg& "•''sSK ••-'•^s^ •ii^^' »IB &? o