HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR. J. APPELLANT Claimant RESPONDENTS M.A. (Q No.992 of 2009 Ankit Mishra Versus Hardayal Singh Rangwani ORDER Pronouncement of order ^.08.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \^,08.2010- .^^%. j%.. '9 i ^v '^... .^ ^ x... v^'y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. APPELLANT CLAIMANT M.A.(C) No. 992 of 2009 Ankit Mishra, aged about 21 years, S/o K.K.Mishra, R/o Geedam Road, Forest Colony, Post Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Hardayal Singh Rangawani, S/o Late Hemant Das aged about 35 years, R/o Azad Chouwk, Post Jagdalpur, District Bastar(C.G.) 2. Smt. Prabhawati Singh, W/o T.V. Singh, R/o New Market Bhacheli, District - Dantevada (C.G.) 3. Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar(C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 (21 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT.1988 RESPONDENTS Non-Claimants Appearance: Shri Pravin Tutsiyan, counselforthe appellant/claimant. None for respondents No.1 & 2 Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3 ORDER (Passedon^ 2-08.2010) This appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar place at Jagdalpur (C.G.) (for short 'the Tribunal') passed in claim case No. 43/2008 vide award dated 16th March, 2009. 2. As againsf the compensation of the Rs.4,15,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Mofor Vehicles Act for injuries sustained in the motor accident on 26.11.2007, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.58,104/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till the date of actual payment. ^Sh^B:. ^ /.I' '^2^ I i.^;.. ^.--.^...^' ^'^i^l^l^'ifSil ^.. 3. The Tribunal on close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it, held that the injured Ankit Mishra sustained injuries in the motor accident on 26.11.20Q7; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle i.e. Jeep No. C.G. 18/0283; as the offending vehicle was insured with the National Insurance Co. Ltd., on the date of accident, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation tothe claimants. 4. As the respondents had not filed any appeal against the above findings, the said recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. ^— 5. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has not awarded any sum towards loss of future earning. According to him,the appellant/claimant was working as a Computer Operator and sometimes he used to look after the field work by walking and due to accident he suffered 55% disability and as a result of such disability he could not even move here and there. On these premises, he urged that some amount should be enhanced under the head of loss of future income. He placed reliance in the matter of Arvind Kumar Sharma v- Roshan Lal and Others, 2006 (1) D.M.P. 206 (M.P.), Smt. Anamika Mondal v. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. and another, 2010 (1) ACCD 383 (Cal) and Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation and another v. Ka/'/as/i Narain Srivastava andothers, 2010 (1) ACCD 182 (All). 6. On the other hand, the respondent No.3 supported the award impugned and argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair compensation. He also argued that nothing has been pleaded in claim petition about the loss of future income and in the absence of such pleading the Tribunal has rightly awarded just and fair compensation. 7. Having considered the rivat contentions of the parties and after perusal of record, it is clear that the appellant claimed compensation under the following heads: i) Loss of Income; ii) Loss of income due to permanent disability; iii) Expenses incurred in treatment; iv) Expenses to be incurred in future treatment; and v) Physical and mental agony. By giving such details under the above heads, the appellant did not demand single penny towards loss offuture income. 8. Appellant examined himself as A.W.1. In his evidence also, he has not deposed about the loss of future income. He has stated that prior to accident he was working in Baldev Infra Projects (Pvt.) Limited in the capacity of Computer Operator. He has further deposed that he used to visit Company's site and look after the measurement work. In this connection, the claimant has not adduced any evidence from the side of Company that he used to attend the Company's site for taking measurement work. Thus, it cannot be said thaf he used to look after work of measurement also. The document Ex.A.8, which appears to be pay certificate, does not show that the appellant also used to look after the work of measure also but has mentioned that the appellant is working as a computer operator. 9. The Tribunal has assessed the income of the appellant at Rs.4000/- per month, according to Ex.A.8 and after considering the injuries sustained by him in the accident, the Tribunal has taken a view that the injured was unable to work for a period of about 6 months and awarded Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income; Rs.25,000/- towards mental and physical agony; Rs.7,104/- towards expenses incurred in treatment and Rs.2,000/- towards nutritious diet. In this manner, the Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs.58,104/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5%. 10. On due consideration of the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and after perusal of impugned award including record of the Tribunal, the Tribunal was rightly justified in awarding sums under the above heads, which 1 am of the considered view, is correct and did not commitany error. 11. So far as loss of future income is concerned, according to the claimant, he was working as Computer Operator and at times he used to go the field for taking measurement and due to accident he was unable to perform his duty properly, but on perusal of record, no document showing that the appellant in addition to work of computer operation used to attend field work for taking measurement is available on record nor any evidence .t^^^&t. ,i.:li^"...^r^ . T''.' t l\ was adduced by him to that effect. Moreover, the claimant has also not taken any plea in his claim petition on this point. The claimant has not stated that he is drawing less payment after the accident or his payment has been reduced by the Company where he was working. As per certificate Ex.A.8, he was getting salary of Rs.4000/- per month and after accident he is getting the same salary which clearly shows that there is no loss of income. Therefore, his evidence is not reliable. The citations relied upon by the counsel for theappellant being fully distinguishable on facts to the present case do not help the appellant. 12. For the foregoing reasons and in the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 am of the opinion that compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation and does not call for interference. 13. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. R.L. Jhanwar Judge