i HIGH ^OURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 1 DIVISJONBENCH c. 1& CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, CJ. j HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUIVIARSSNHA, J. Applicant/ Appeliant Mlsc. Appea! No. 293 of2002 Rangilal Patel S/o Agnuram Patet age 28 years R/o Viilage Charbhata Tahsil Kurud, distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Budhram Sahu S/o Baliram Sahu Age 36 years, owner & driver of Vehicle No. M.P. 23, G.A. /1465 & Troiley No. M.P. 23 G.A./1466, R/o Village Charbhata, TahsiL Kurud distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 2. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. through Divisionai Office Katchari Chowk Jail Road Raipur (C.G.) Misc. Appeal under Section173 of iyiotorVeh^iclesAct Non-applscants Respondents Present: Shri C.R. Sahu, counsel forthe appellant. None for respondent No.1. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (08th November, 2010) The following order 6f the Court was passed by RajeevGupta/CJ. Appellant Rangilal Patei is-seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Acddent Claims K c Tribunal, Dhalmtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award Idated 13.09.2001, passed in claim case No.189/2000. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- clalmed by the appeljanV claijmant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vetiicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02-04-1999, theTribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.84,850/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition titl the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribuna! on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Rangiiai Patel sustained multipie serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 02-04-1999; the injuries and the fractures sustained by the claimant in the motor accident resulted in permanent disability to the extent of-20%; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the, offending vehicle Tractor-Troliey bearing registration No.M.P-23 G.A./1465 and M.P.-23 G.A./1466, respectively; as the above offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley on the date of the accident was insured With the Orjenta! Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the poiicy conditions, the insurance Company was iiable to pay compensation to the ciaimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. .^'^ B' -^.., ', WK 5) The Tiribunal considering the number and nature jof the injuries prove|j to have been sustained by the elaimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on Ns treatment, awarded Rs.45,000/- towards permanent disabilitytothe extent of 20%; Rs.20,600/- towards medical expenses; Rs.8,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.6,250/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment; and Rs.5,000/- towards special diet and attendant. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.84,850/- 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.84,850/-@ 9% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition tlll thedate ofactual payment. 6) Shri CR Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.84,850/- only, though the appellant/claimant on account of the injuries and the fractures sustained by him in the motor accident has been rendered unfit to pursue hisoccupation as labour. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi, tearned counsel for respondent No.2 on the other hand, supported the award and contended that,the Tribunal has been quite liberai in awarding substantial amount of Rs.84,850/-as compensation to the claimant. 8) Ciaimant Rangilai Pate! on the dateof the accidentwas aged about 28 years. He was labour by occupation. He sustained fracture of his rjght leg is established from the evidence of AW/2 Dr c,. ^ ."'^ VK Pandeyl The claimant on account ofthesaid fracture coutd not have pursued his occupation as labour for 4-6 months. !t is a matter of common knowledgethat substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. 9) The jcompensation of Rs.84,850/- awarded by the Tribuna! when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features ofthe case, in our opinion, is somewhat on the lower side and deservesto be enhanced to someextent. 10) Considering ali the relevantaspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.15,000/- indusive ofinterest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.84,850/- awarded by the Tribunat as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the presentcase. 11) The appeal filed by the appeltant/ claimant for enhancement ofthe compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimantis awarded further sumof Rs.15,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.84,850/- awarded by the Tribunat. 12) Respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.15,000/- before the concerning CIaims Tribunal. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- , Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma Y-'' "ui 1