\^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (C) No. 341 of 2007 Appellant Smt. Kamalbati Respondents VERSUS DeepaJk Kumar Paiidey & others ^ ORDER For consideration 5^) -06-201 1 Hon*ble Shri Raieev Gupta -€-CL^ ' - -^ ——- - Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Judge ^ -06-2011 Postfor:^S- -06-2011 Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^s^^- '^\ 11 ^. ^" ^<t%^-^ •2P HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc, Appeal (C) Np, 341 of 2QQ7 Appellant : Smt. Kaaialbati W/o Shri Virchand aged about 35 years R/o Vfflage Lendra PS Darbha Distt. Bastar (CG). VBRSUS Respondeiits : 1. Deepak Kumar Pandey S/o Abhay Kumar Paadey aged about 23 years R/o Vitlage Kiikaaar PS Kukaaar Distt. Daatevada (CG) (Driver of tlie vehicle) 2. Domu S/o Sardu R/o ViUage Gmxia PO Kodan Pal Tah. Konta Distt. Dantevada (CG). 3. Oriental Insurance Coinpaay Lmiited, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Misc. Appeal under Section 173 offhe Motor Vehicles Act) DB: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. & Hoa*ble Shri N. K. Affarwal. J. Preseat : Shri PK Tulsyaa, Advocate for tJie appellaiit. Shri Shailendra Shanna, Advocate for respoudent No. 3/Insuraace Conipaay. JUDGMENT (DeUvered on A& .06.2011^ Per : N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. Instaat appeal has been prefen'ed by the appellaiit seeking enhaixcenient of coinpensation ia fhe award dated 20.12.2006, passed by the IVth AddL Motor Accident Claims TribTinal (FTC), Bastai', Jagdalpur(for short <the Tribunat') ia claim case No. 79/05. 2. Bneffacts offhe case are that on 14.05.2005, due to rash and negUgent driving of driver of Tractor bearuig registration No. CG-18-0-0,328 &, its TroUey No. CG-18-G-0329, the said Tractor •^ 6. toLimed turtle as a result ofwhich tlie appeUant who was sitting ia fhe trolley sustaiaed miiltiple injuries. As agaiast fhe coinpensation of Rs. 9,75,OOO/- claimed by the appeUant/clainiaiit by fiUng a claiin petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Acf), for the iajunes sustaiaed by her ia the niotor accident on 14.05.2005; fhe Tribunal has awarded a total siim of Rs. 2,000/- as compensatiou along witli interest @ 6 percent per anmim from fhe date of filiag of fhe claim petition till the date of actual payment. The Tribunal, on a close scnitiny of the entire evidence led, raaterial placed and submissions made by the parties, held : accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of offending vehicle; clamiant sustained multiple injuries inchiding sweUiag ra nose; awarded Rs. 2,000/- in favoiir of clamiant payable by fhe respondents joinfly and severaUy along with interest @ 6 percent froni fhe d&te of application till the date of actual payraent Shri PK Tulsyan, learaed counsel appearing for the.appeUant would submit: the Tribunal has erred in awardiiig low amoiint of coinpensation of Rs. 2,000/- only, fhough the appellant on accoiint of iajunes sustained by her in the accident has been rendered unfit to piirszie her occiipation as laboiir and fherefore, award amount deserves to be suitably enhanced lookiag to ftie facts and circumstances oftihe case, \ On the other haiid, Shri Shailendra Sharma, learaed coiinsel appearing fofc fhe respondent No. 3/Insurance Conipany supported the award impugned and woiild siibmit : the :::T^^ -' 'G-rLo-l-^. t^ 8. appellant with ofher passengers was traveling in the offending vehicle as gratuitous passenger and insiirance company is not at aU Uable for payment of compensation to ftie claimant iaasmuch as, the risk of fhe appeUant/claimant is neither statutorily required to be covered under the policy nor the iasuraace compaay had taken such risk by entering into special contract with the rasured/owner by chargiDg extra preiaium flierefor. He woiild fiirther submit in the facts anid circzimstaaces of the case, the amozint awarded by the Tribiinal is just and proper and needs no iuterference. As fhe respondent No. 3/0riental Insurance Companiy has not challenged its liability by preferring appeal, therefore, the findiags of the Tribunal holding the Insiirance Company liable for paynient of compensation to the claimant has now attainied finality. It appears that tlie appellant has iitterly failed to prove any penaaaent disability occuxred on' account of injiiries sustained by her in the said accident. As per statement para~3 ofDr. V.K. Joshi (AW-2) who was not a treatii3g doetor, appellate neither suffered permauent disability nor loss of eaming capacity on account of injuries sustaiiied by her in the accident. However, it is also totiie that appellant was aged aboiit 35 years on the date of accident, she was a laboiir by occupation; siistained serious injuries including swelling in nose as established by Dr. V.K. Joshi, fherefbre, she iniist have suffered pain and suffering, raust have spent at least some amozint on treatment \ aad raust have ^uffered loss ofeaining for few days* ':.^ ^ 9, The coinpensatlon of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Tribiinal, when examined ia ^ie light of above mentioned broad features of the case, ta our opiaion, is certainily on the lower side and deserves to be enhaxiced suitably. 10. Considenng aU tlie relevant aspects offhe matter, we are ofthe opinion tliat further award of Rs. 10,000/- mclusive ofinterest component would raake fhe compensation of Rs, 2,000/~ awarded by the Tribunal as just aiid proper compensation in tlie facts and circumstances oftJie present case. 11, The appeal filed by the appeUant/claimaDt for enhancexnent of conipensation, tlierefore, is allowed in part. The claimajit is awarded further suin of Rs. 10,000/- inchisive of mterest component ia additiou to fhe snm of Rs, 2,000/-, awarded by the Tnbunal. 12. Respondent No. 3/ Oriental Inszirance Coinpaiw Limited is graated three months' time for depositing tJie total sum of Rs. 10.000/- before flie conceming'Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu