HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W CORAM: Hon‘ble Shri $.R.Nayak, Chief JUS‘Hce & Hon'ble 5hri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. APPELLANT Hemlal, 5/0 Sanfumm Dhruwa aged abouf Claimam 18 years R/o VIIL Samdih, P‘s. Suhela, Tah. Paluri, Dis‘rric? Rnipur (C.G.) Versus 1. Jakir Khan, 5/0 Mohd. Sarifkhah Musalmun, R/o. Kurud, P.5. Palnri, Dis'rric‘r Ruipur (6.6.) RESPONDENTS = Driver 2. Firoz Khan, 5/0 Sarifkhan Musalman, R/o. Vi". Kurud, P.S. Palari, Disfricf Raipur (C.G.) Owner Insurer The New India Insurance Company L‘rd. Regis'rered Office-3, Midilfan Sfreef Kolka‘ra-70071 Presenf Address: NaTional Insurance Company Lfd., Branch Office, Mohasimahai, G.E.Rcad, Raipur Dist Raipur (C.6.) Shri Eou‘tam Khe‘h‘apa‘, Counse‘ for the appellant Shri‘IAii Asgar, Counsel for The Insurance-Company/Responden'r No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 26*“ April 2006) The following oral order of ihe Cour? was passed by 5. R. Nayak, CJ. In a personal injury case, ihe injured not being satisfied wifh fhe compensation awarded by ihe Mo'for Accideni’s Claims Tribunal (M.A.C.T.), has preferred 1his appeal. In an accident occurred on 30m ,R’ -— June 2002 involving The mofor vehicle driven by firsf respondent owned by second responden+ and insured by Third respondent fhe appeHuni has susfained certain injuries including fracfure of righf femur and fibia. He was hospifaiized for four days as indoor pa'rien'f befween 30*“ June 2002 and 3” July 2002. The fad fha‘i’ "the occidem‘ occurred due To ac‘rionabie negiigence on fhe parf of fhe driver of fhe vehicle involved in fhe accidenf is no‘l' in confroversy, and ‘I’herefore, ,‘I’here is no need for us 1'0 review fhe finding recorded by fhe M.A.C.T. on actionable negligence. 2. If was contended by +he learned counsel for fhe oppellanf fhaf global compensafion of Rs.20,000/- awarded by fhe M.A.C.T. oannof be regarded as a jusl' and reasonable compensafion wifhin The confemplafion of 'l'he Mo‘l’or Vehicles ACT, 1988 (for shor'l' ‘fhe Acf'). If was furfher confended fhm‘ fhe M.A‘C.T. did nof award icompensalion separafely on various permissible heads. Learned counsel for The Insurance-Company, per confra, would supporf fhe impugned award. 3. Having heard learned counsel for The parTies, The only quesTion ThaT arises for decision is wheTher The compensation awarded by The M.A.C.T., in The facTs and circumsTances of The case and evidence on record,could be considered Tobe a jusT and reasonable compensaTion wiThin The conTemplaTion of The ACT and if iT is noT, whaT is jusT and reasonable compensaTion‘ 4. IT has come in The evidence of The appellanT ThaT aT The relevanT poinT of Time, The appellanT was earning his livelihood by selling bakery foods and due To accidenT, he could noT carry on his vooaTion_for a period of Two years. IT was claimed ThaT he was earning daily Rs.150/-. IT is also on record ThaT The appellanT claimed medical expenses and has produced medical bills To The Tune of Rs.18,495/-. t 4:3“ a _.$v 5. Ir. ari injury case, an injured person is en'fifled 1‘0 duim reasonable compenswion under various heads such as, pain and suffering, medical expenses, aHendance and conveyance charges, provisions for special nuiri‘rion and food, loss of income during laid up period, loss of fufure income, loss of ameni'ries of life, if There are any permanent disabilifies efc. In fhaf view of fhe ma'Her, fhe learned M.A.C,T. is not justified in awarding mere Rs.20,000/- as global compensafion wifhoufapprecia'i’ing fhe evidence laid before if and withou‘i‘ examining whe'iher compensation on cerfain permissible heads could be awarded io The injured—appellant 6. Having regard fo fl'ie nafure of injury sustained by fhe appellani' in fhe accident we fhink Thaf a sum of Rs.15,000/— would be a jusf compensafion under The head, 'pain and suffering‘. 3’. Medical bills for Rs.18,495/— were produced before The M.A.C.'l'., as could be seen from The original records. Rounding iT, we award a sum of Rs.19,000/- Towards medical expenses. Though The appellanT claimed his daily income was Rs.150/-, iT seems To our mind ThaT iT is on higher side. Therefore, we Take The-daily income of The appellanT aT Rs.100/-. Due To The fracTure susTained by The appellanT and having regard To The naTure of The avocaTion carried on by him, iT is quiTe reasonable To Think ThaT The appellanT was noT in a posiTion To aTTend his avocaTion for a period of Three monThs. In ThaT view of The maTTer, we award a sum of Rs.9,000/- ToWards loss of income during The laid up period. The appelianT was in hospiTal as indoor paTienT for a period of 4 days, and Therefore, we award a sum of Rs.2,0007— cumulaTively under The heads, aTTendance charges, conveyance charges and The eXpenses incurred Towards special nuTriTign and food. TheinTeresT awarded by The M.A.C.T. aT The raTe of 9% per annum is an appropriaTe raTe and iT does noT call for any inTerference. r ,qA /\4 -L‘.‘ 8. In +h‘e resul'r and for the foregoing reasons, we allow fhe upped and in subsfifufion of fhe avmrd passed by +he M.A.C‘T., we award a 'ro'm! compensn‘fion of Rs.45,000/- under The following heads: 1) Pain and suffering 2) Medical Expenses 3) Loss of Income during The laid up period 4) Affendance and conveyance charges, and the cos'l' of special nufri‘rion and food. To‘lal: wifh inferes‘r a‘r fhe me of 9% per onnum from The date of claim pe‘fii’ion 1'ill payment 9. The difference of compensation payable +0 fhe appellanf shall be paid fo him by 'l’he 3”, respondent-Insurance Company wi‘l’hin a period of six weeks from foday. The appellanf is also enfifled To cosf of This appeal which is quan‘lified aT Rs.1500/—. f i l l Chief Jusu'ce i Judge \ \ Rs.15,000/- Rs.19,000/— Rs. 9 ,000l- (3,000/- x 3) Rs. 2,000/- Rs.45,000/- Sd/h DILIP RAOSAHEB DESHMUKH Judge / \