HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BIL£SPUR DiVi$ION BENCH CORAM HON BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA C J 8: FON’BLE 5HRE SUNEL N'AR 5W A u Misc Anpeai No.109 of 2003 Appeiiantl Hlrendra Sahu S/o GhaSIram Sahu Appaicant aged about 23 years, “/0 Mahaveer Colony Post office - Durg, Tahsn & Dis? Dar \CG; Versus Santosh Patle, 53/0 BB Chandra Patle, ed ahGut a4 y f3 K/u Manarmnl Nagar Nagpur P$ Anjam Dlstt Nagnur (Maharas ”a) \Dmer) Resnondents :‘v'orn-apoibarits 2 Prashant Kamle S/o Vmavak Rao. KamEe aged about 27 yeqs P/o New tyne 3 1/88/3 Defence Nagpur Dist Nagpur (Waharasrrra) {Veurcie Omar) National insurance Company Ltd., Through : Divisional Manager national insurance Company Ltd., Thakkar Complex, Power House, Bhiiai (Chhattisgarh) Memorandum of Aggeai under Sectron 173 of the Moto ehcle not Shri VP Singh, counsel for the appeiiant. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Sanjay K Agrawal and Shri Sudeep Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ~ Present : . Order (3rd August, 2010‘) w The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. @ y“ Appenant Hirendra Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 07.03.20D2 passed in Claim Case No.3/2001. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.17,20,000/—, claimed by the appellanticlaimant: by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ‘ of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the lniurles sustained by him in the motor accident on 03.03.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.28,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri VF’ Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal after assessing the compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.33,103/—, has erred in reducing the same to, Rs.28,000f—, on the ground that the lump sum payment is being made to the claimant. Learned counsel further submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding only Rs.3,623f- towards medical expenses though the appellant spent substantial amount on his treatment. 4) Shri Sanlay K Agrawal and Shri Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National insurance Company Limited, On the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.28,000i-’ awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and ‘circumstances of the present case. J’jp 5) The Tribunai holding that the claimant sustained permanent disability to the extent of 10%, assessed Rs.24,480/- towards loss of future earning capacity; Rs.5,00G/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.3623/- towards medical expenses. Thus, the total compensation was assessed at Rs.33,103/—. The Tribunal appears to have reduced this amount of Rs.33,1G3/— to Rs.28,000/— on account of the fact that the compensation was being paid in lump sum to the claimant. 6') ln our opinion, the above reduction by the Tribunal of the amount of compensation from Rs.33,103/— to Rs.28,00G/— is un-warranted and the same, therefore, cannot be sustained. 7) That apart, the Tribunal has fallen into error in not awarding any sum towards loss of income, which the claimant suffered a during the period of his treatment. 8) On due consideration of all the reievant factors and the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are, of the opinion that further award of Rs.1 1 ,OOGI- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of cOmpensation will make the compensation of Rs.28,000/— awarded by‘the Tribunal as just and proper i compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) The appeal filed by the appeiiant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is ailowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.‘l ’l ,000l- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.28,000i— awarded by the Tribunal. 10) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months‘ time for depositing the totai sum of RsJ 1 ,DOOI- before the concerning Claims Tribunai. padma 11) No order as to costs \ « \ ‘i i Sdl- K Sd/- 3USTICE 3x W i Sunil Kumar Sinha CHEF , \ L i Judge ’LV/ V r, i k.