"^ Y-^- '.':.''; w^ IN THE HON'BLE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASI M.A. (C) No. [v? ^ I OF 2008 i (APPEAL VALUED ATRs 5,38.800 /-) \\s ^islors Bgiicfe APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MDTORVEHICLES ACT. 1988.. •r\ APPELLANT ' (NON- APPLICANT N0.3) ...y^^r^ ,.....-^'Jc.o^c ^•^:::^^-:^.^-^ ^iw:s;^^ ^^••" \ RESPONDENTS (APPLICANTl (NON-APPLICANT N0.1) (NON-APPLICANT N0.2) :1. >"L '; :3 ? National Insurance Company Limited, Ist Floor 40/43 Tula Complex Gandhi Nagar Karnool, (AP), Through: Its Divisional-Office, B-l Taha Complex Ist Floor Ring Road, Priyadarshini Nagar, Bilaspur(CG). \ VERSUS Ku. Monisha M.Hirani, D/0- Mohd. Ali Hirani, aged - ISyears, R/0-H.I.G. 14, Padmnabhpur, Durg, Distt.- Durg(C.G.) Kishor Dadamal, S/0- Maroti Dadamal, aged about -25 yreas, R/0-village-Aasada, Post- Bhatala, Tah.-Barora, Distt.- Chandrapur (Maharasta-a)(driver) Shri Noor Ahmad Kh^n, S/Q- Not Known, R/0-House N0.3/113-B, Balaji Nagar Karnool, Andhra I¥adesh. (owner) ^.' HI^H COURT OF CHHArTIS^ARH AT BILASPUR DIYISION BENCH: HON'BLE MR. I.M.QUD&USI A HON'BLE MR.NAWAL laSHORE ^ARWAL JJ. ApDaHant ResBondants M.A.M No.1434/2008 National Insurance Company Limited Vs Ku. Monrsha M Hirani <& others \Prdwnt: Mr. Oashrcd-h 6upta, Advocafre for the appellwri-. Mr. R.K. ^uroastha, Advocate for respondent No.l. ORDER fOraft (24th Nowinbcr, 201(0 I.M. Quddusi. J; 1. Heard. 2. The appellqrrf's-msurance ccmpany has fiM this miscellanepus appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 agamst the impugned owwd dated 01.03.2008 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C6) (for brevity the tribunaC) in Claim Case No.41/2007 pcrt'ly allowin9 the claim petition of the rcspondent No.l. 3. Permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 to contest the elaim on all availabje defences was granted to the appellant-company. 4. Facts of the case,»n brief, arethot on 6.5.2006 theclajmwri'/respondent No.l was going abng with her relotives to Hyderobad in a vehicle becring registration number C6-07-2437 to qtt-end some social program. At ubout 1.00 am. in the night they reached near Railway ^ate No,4, Hm9cuighot and since the gcrt-e was closed, they stopped their vehicle and at that time a truck bearin9 registration number AP21-0430, which was coming from Nagpur side and driven in rash and negligent manner, dashed the vehicle in which the claimant was sitting from backside as a resuh- the claimant and other passengers sitt-ing in the vehicle sustained vwious grlevous injuries. The claimant became unconscious and in thot condition she was taken to Hmganghat Hospital, however, loc^ing to the critical condition of the claimant, she was admitt-ed in KflSturba Hospital. Sevooram. Thweafl-er she ^^^^ //•^ wos admitted in the Sushrut Hospital, Nagpur iiyhere she reniaineci aidmitted for 15 days. The claimant has ctairoed corapensation to the tune of Rs.16,00,000/- on the ground that' due to said (iccident sh^ has suffered 30% permanent cljsabilityand dye tow which she is not dble to do her work progerlyand the swne witl also create hurdles in herniarrjc^e. 5. Non-applicants No.l A 2 remained ex-part-e. The appellwit/nQn-applicant Nto.3 filed its written statement and tcken a ptea that the vehjcle was plied in breach ofthe terms and conditions ofthe inswanee policy and therefore the insurance company is not liable to be sottsfy the award. 6. On the pleadings of the pcrKes, the tnbunal has •framed as many as^^^^^^^ issues and after hearjng the parties jn the matter has partly altowed the claim petition of the claimant and awarded a sum of Rs.5,38,KX)/- under various heads. 7. Learned counsel for the appeHant has submitt-ecl that the method adoptecl by the tribunal to assess the loss of income is defectivc as the learned tribunal has firstly deducted 1/3 -from the onnual income of the irvured and thereafter deducted 30%, which is not permissible under the ^Aotor Vehicles Aet-, 1988. Furt-her^ the tribunal should not have relted ypon the medical certifico*®produced by the claimcuit as the sam® has not been issued by the Medical Board and shajld have held thot the claimant failed to prove 30% permanent disabjlity. He has further submitt'ed that the amount awarded to the claimant towards medical expenses i.e. Rs.l,90,p00/- is too excessive QS the claimant has prpduced bilte of fts.l,77,38p/- only and therefore the same deserves to be reduced substantjally. 8. On the other hand,leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 has support-ed the impugned awwd. 9. So fw as the assessment of monthty jncome of the claimant ut Rs.3000/- is concerned, we do not find <OTY iUegaltty or (nfjrmtty jn the same and accordingly, the same is hereby confirmed. However, the method adopted by the tribunal to assess the loss of jncome of the jnjured i.e. cteduction of l/3t'd from the total income of the injured, isnot correct. The tribunal should have d«juct-edonh/ 30% from the total income ofthe injured. Thus, ''^ ^fr, %gj|Pt-|| .././ ^y ^ if we deduct 30% from the total annual income of the jnjured i.e. Rs.36,000/-, the loss of income of the jrijured would come to Rs.l0,8p0/- and by applying muh-ipjjer pf 16 to the loss of jncome, the aropunt of compensation works ouf to Rs.1,72,800/-. 10. Further, the sum of Rs.50,000/- awardect towards pain cuid suffenng by the tribunal on occount of permancnt disabjljty is also on the highersjde and therefore, the same is hereby roodified and now the claimant would be entitled for Rs.IO,000/- under this head. 11. So far as the argument of learned counsel for the appeJlant that the ounpunt awarded bythe tribunal towards medjcal expenses is concerned, considering the fact that the injured is 18 years old gjrt wd further consjden^ future marrjage prospect of the injured, we we of the opinion that- the tribunal has rightly awarded Rs.1,90,000/- tpwards mcsdical expenses. 12. Rests of the amount awarded by the tnbimal under other permissjble heads are in accordance with the amount mentioned in th®Secwid Sffhedule provided under Section 163A of the Act. Thus, the total wnount of coropensotjon for which the clatmant WGiyM be errt-itlecf fcw is Rs.4,02,800/- 13. In the resuH-, we modifythe award clated 1J.20Q8 and nowthe ^ respondent No.l shatl be entitled to get Rs.4,02,800/- as compenscrt-iwi alpng with interest @ 6% from the dote of appHcert-ion t»Mth®payment is made. Rest of thecondjtjons jmppsed by the tribunal shdJ remain jntwt. Howeyer, whatever wnount has been deposjted by the appelJant-jnsirwoe cprnpany shall be adjusted towards the aroount of com^scrtion as fixecl by this Court. 14. The appeal is aHowed in pcu^ tq the ext-ent jncliccri-ed above. Roshan/- Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge