r- .^..•v^/v<'^^'^ •..-^'^^•^•^ ».-3??B1. -tl^1-'- /^p^ c^/ MrHEM16HCWRTO^WWTWE^_BB^SPUR CHHATnSGARH APPELLANT .......^ R.^.w p'i-**'''" ,..^*' .ai' ...^ J^^^ s^ ^u^ ^".-^ RESPONDENT/ APPUCANT Djvlsion Bsncl Tribhuvan Kose|s/o Shobha Ram Kose, aged about 37 years Caste Dhimar R/o Q. no. 01 Ward no.13. Khorpa, Sheetalpara, Nagar Panchayat Patan Tah. Patan Disst. Durg (C.G.). VERSUS 1. Salik Ram Vishva.karma S/o Sonsaya Vishvakarma aged about 46 years R/o Hal Krishna Millar Khadan Chunkatta village Mudahipar P.S. Utai Tah. Patan Distt. Durg (CG) ^ 2. Shiv Dev Sigh Kalkar S/o Ranjeet Sigh Kalkar aged about 36 years R/o 165/3, V.I.P. Nagar, Rishali Bhilai P.S. Newai Tah. and Distt. Durg (CG) ^- 3. ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co. Ltd., Unit no. 304- 306, Third Floor, Lalganga Shoping Mall, Ravishankar Unit G.E. Road Raipur, Tah. And Distt. Raipur(CG) MISC APPEAI fCLAIIVIt UNnFR SECTION i7-t nc i.flQTOR VEHICLEACT 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J, nflisc. Appeal (C) No.670 of 2009 Appellant c. Respondents Tribhuvan Kose, s/o Shobha Ram Kose, aged about 37 years, Caste Dhimar r/o Q No.01 Ward No.13, Khorpa, Sheetalpara, Nagar Panchayat Patan Tah Patan Distt Durg (CG) VERSUS Salik Ram Vishvakarma, s/o Sonsaya Vishvakarma, aped about 46 years, r/o Hal Krishna Millar Khadan Chunkatta Village Mudahipar PS Utai Tah Patan Distt Durg (CG) Shiv Dev Sin.gh Kalkar, s/o Ranjeet Singh Kalkar, aged about 36 years, r/o 165/3, VIP Nagar, Rishali Bhilai, PS Newai Tah and Distt Durg (CG) ICICI Lombard General Insurance Co Ltd, Unit No.304-306, Third Floor, Lalganga Shopping Mall, Ravishankar Unit GE Road, Raipur Tah and Distt Raipur (CG) IVIemo^f^pBeaLunder SectionJ 73 of IVIotor Vehicle Act Present: None for the appellant. None for the respondents. ORDER >th (08InSeptember,2Q11) asitSSSSs-^-.-.. :^_ ,-^. •':-^ (W l-1'^' ^^r" MAC No. 670 of 2009 ^ The following order of the Couri: was |3assed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant / Claimant Tribhuvan Kose is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.01.2009, passed in Claim Case No.11/2D08. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.36,12,500/- claimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under $ection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 03.08.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,57,875/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the 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 Tribhuvan Kose sustairfed multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 03.08.2007; the accid6nt occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.07/C/6582; as the above offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. I! ,..i^' •';"<^..v '!> •'.''V^^.iS:'-^, ;• 's' s ••:-^-'^i-^" ..^~ MAC No. 670 of 2009 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the impugned award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal, have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries led to amputation of his right leg above knee and the amount proved to have spent on treatment, awarded Rs.3,22,560/- towards loss in the future earning capacity on account of the amputation of his right leg; Rs.20,000/- towards loss of amenities of life; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.3,000/- for attendant; Rs.3,000/- for conveyance; Rs.3,000/- for special diet; and Rs.1,315/- for medical expenses. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.3,57,875/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,57,8757- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 6) From the grounds taken in the memo of appeal, we gather that the appellant is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal mainly on the ground that the Tribunal has not taken the actual income of the claimant of Rs.9,000/- into consideration while assessing the compensation payable to the claimant. 7) Claimant Tribhuvan Kose was aged about 37 years on the date of the accident. Though the claimant claimed that his 1 w '"^: MAC No. 670 of 2009 income was at Rs.9,000/- per month, no cogent and reliable evidence was led before the Tribunal for establishing the income of the claimant at Rs.9,000/- per month. In this state of evidence, we do not find any infirmity in the assessment of the income of the claimant by the Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. The multiplier of 16 selected by the Tribunal, in our opinion, cannot be said to be on the lower side. The bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal in regard to the medical expenses were to the extent of Rs.1,314.62 and the Tribunal by rounding it off to Rs.1,315/-, awarded the same amount towards medical expenses. 8) The Apex Court in the case of Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others, reported in AIR 2003 SC 674, found the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- in all to be just and proper compensation in the said case where the claimant suffered amputation of his one leg in the accident. 9) The compensation of Rs.3,57,875/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Nagappa vs. Gurudayal Singh and Others (supra), we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 10) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the 1- (^: MAC No. 670 of 2009 appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. _ __ _ __ _._ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge subbu