'Apyellant é1a1mant - of 200 2. ‘ 't r“,¢’Xs/o. Hii-a Singh sahu: 3G years. Mehattar- 'Ram Sahu: a/bi Vin; Harem. Ten. xurud. Distt . Dhamtari. €q u w 4 A!“ a 2#4? f 7M Ve r8us espondent en-I- applie ant 1. Firtu Qam @ Prik-am. 5/0. Ems}: sihgh. 21 yeam. r/a. viii. Kusumkasar .s. Dalli Rajahara. Distt. Rajnanagwn. The“ New India Insurance manta“ In frant—sof Project Aute‘mobiles G.E. Road Bhilai. Distt. burg. g)?" M l Misc LLENwvs APPEAL U/s 173 o? THE mama vmurmm Aer x, stat. Pushpa Devi Abni’ w/o. amjmohan Ami. r/o. Bhilai s Iii sector No.77 Deepalcguagannurg. xt‘rPreseVnt Ab‘ni Motor Garrage . Beside P.3’.‘ ,Nandani. Deepak Nagarmnurg. .. v A. w m ‘W Jjx ,r iN T HI UI‘ OF CAISARH AT BILAEPUR HE GH COK HHTTG f @ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON’BLE $HRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Coram NLA. N0. 894 of 2002 \ i Appellant Ciaimant Mehattar Ram Sahu Slo Hira Singh Sahu, 30 year’s, R/o 'vm. Hardi, Teh. Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari. Versus Firtu Ram @ Pritam S/o Bhesh Vili. Kusumkasa, P.S. Daiii Rajahara. Distt. Rajnandgacn. ’ W/o Brijmohan Abni, r/o Bhilai Sector No.7 Deepak Nagar Durg. At present Abni Motor Garrage Beside P.S. Nandani, Deepak Nagar Durg (C.G.) The New lndia insurance Co. Ltd. In front of Project Auto mobiles, G.E. Road Bhilai, ‘V‘ ‘ Resnondents nan-applicants o Pushpa Devi Distt. Durg Miscellaneous Appeai UIS 173 of the Motor Vehichs Present : Shri Prafuii Bharat & Shri Santosh Bharat. Ieamed counsei for the appellants. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Advocate learned counSel with Shrl Q. Aziz, respondent No.3. for ORDER (7th August, zoos) The following order of the Court was passed Rajeev Gupta. C.J.: by j This is claimant’s appeal for enhancement of the bompensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Dhamtari, District Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunat‘) vide award dated 04—07—2002, passed in Claim Case No.41 4i2002. i r2 Claimant Mehattar Ram Sahu claimed compensation of E‘Rs‘4,OO,OOO/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor l l accident on 12-04-2001, when the Metador bearing registration Nb.‘MP/24—9023 in which he was traveliing with his vegetables was dashed by the offending vehicle Dumper, bearing registration No. ’MP/24C-3‘271, resuiting in multiple serious injuries to the foiaimant. The claimant further pteaded that on account of the injuries and fracture sustained by him in the motor accident, he was rendered unfit to pursue his occupation as vegetable vendor. a The owner and driver of the offending vehicle Dumper did :not contest the ciaim and were proceeded ex parte before the l :H‘ribunal. The insurer of the Dumper contested the ciaim and l penied its liabiiity to pay compensation to the claimant on the plea that the Dumper was being piied in breach of the poiicy conditions and the driver of the Dumper was not holding-a valid driving l l ilicence. 4 The claimant examined AW1 Mehattar, AW2 Ramesh y l {Kumar AW3‘Dr VK Pandey & AW4 Viiay Singh Thakur in ‘support of his claim whereas the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumber did not examine any Witness in rebuttat i5. Tne Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evrdence led before i l (4?. l l l lit held that ciaimant Mehattar Ram Sahu sustained injuries in the i i i motor accident on 12-04-2001; the accident occurred due to rash 1 and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle , Dumper; as the offending vehicle Dumper on the date of the g accident was insured with the New lndia insurance Company Ltd, the insurance Company was liable to pa compensation to the y i i g claimant. i 6. The Tribunal treating the injuries sustained by the claimant ‘tn‘the motor accident as simple in nature awarded a total sum of ‘ Rs.3;OOO/- as compensation to the claimant with interest @ 9% i per annum from the date‘of filing of the claim petition till the date i of actual payment. l 7. Shri Prafuil Bharat, learned counsei for the appeliant submitted that the compensation of Rs.3,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the serious nature of the i injuries and fracture sustained by the appellant in the motor accident. 8. Shri N.K. Agrawal, learned Senior Counsel for respondent No.3linsurance Company, on the other hand, supported the impugned award and contended that as the injuries and fracture sustained by the appellant in the motor accident have not adversely affected his earning capacity, the compensation of Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper i compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. i 9. The findings recorded by the Tribunal that claimant Mehattar Ram Sahu sustained injuries in’the motor accident; the l accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of l i l l l the offending vehicle Dumper; and the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper was liable to pay compensation to the claimant, have now attained finality as the respondents have not filed‘any agpeai against the award. That apart, these findings are not under challenge before us in this appeal. We, therefore, affirm the above findings recorded by the Tribunal. if). The claimant pleaded that he sustained multiple lniurles includihg fracture of his ribs in the motor accident. in his deposition before the Tribunal, he categorically stated that he sustainedfractur‘e of his ribs. ”ihe claimant examined AW3 Dr.V.K. Pandey, who stated that he treated ciaimant Mehattar Ram Sahu for the fracture of his left ribs. The Tribunal fell into error in hoiding that the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident were simple in nature. i’i. Considering the sufferings the appellant must have undergone on account of the fracture of his ribs and the amount which he must have spent on his treatment, we are of the view that a iump—sum of Rs.15;OOOI-, inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would be iust and l proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. For the foregoing reasons. the appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation is ailowed in part. The compensation ot' Rs.3,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,0001— inciusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation. i l 1 l