-•.-•..•---^^...,.^_,^ A. CD C.P. ^ IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. ^3 1 of 2009 APPELLANT/ Claimant .Nilambar @ Nilu Kanwar, S/o Mohan / Kanwar, aged about 19 years, R/o -e>\^~^\^^ Village-Nagabuda P.S. Gariyaband, ^.^ ^ .^-' District-Raipur (C.G.) ^y^ff^^"" ^ ^- VERSUS RESPONDENTS /Driver Owner Insurer /1. Sitaram Dhruw, S/o Asharam Dhruw, aged about 36 years, R/o Village- Malgaon, P.S. & Tahsil-Gariyaband, District-Raipur (C.G.) 2./ Yunus Warsi, aged about 35 years, S/o SattarWarsi, Caste-Musalman, R/o Civjl Line, Gariyaband, District-Raipur (C.G.) i 3. y Branch Manager, ^" United India Insurance Company Ltd. Original Office Krishna Complex, Kachahari Chowk, District-Raipur (C.G.) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR ENHANCEMENT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C) No. 179 of 2009 APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS Yunus Warsi and another Versus Nilambar @ Nilu Kanwar and another. PRESENT: Shri Raghavendra Pradhan, counsel for the appellants. Ms. SunitaJain, counsel for respondent No.I. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. MISC. APPEAL (Q No. 591 of2009 APPELLANT/ Clainiant RESPONDBNTS Nilambar @ Nilu Kaiiwar. Versus Sitaram Dhruw and others. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J. PRESENT:- Ms. Sunita Jain, counsel for the appellant. Shri Raghavendra Pradhan, counsel for respondents No. 1 &2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (17.08.2011) M.A.(C) No. 179/2009 is preferred by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle Truck against the award dated 23.01.2009 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Gariyaband, Dist. Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') whereas M.A.(C) No.591/2009 is filed by the claimant for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in the above case. r ^...^^^!^^^-^^ y"^^^sgg^g%?ta^ ;- ^^ ^^^":.' r I/ ":-^>^\ - '^ ':^ffi ^ ./ ^ ^ ,0 2. Since common questions of law and facts arose in both the appeals, therefore, both are being disposed of by this common award. 3. As against compensation of Rs.2,37,000/- claimed by the claimant - Nilambar by filing application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short 'the Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the accident on 10.04.2007 by the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G. 04/C-5538, the learned Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.91,520/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 4. The learned Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, held: the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending vehicle Truck; the vehicle was being driven by the appellant/owner - Yunus Warsi in violation of policy conditions; exonerated the insurance company from its liability for payment of compensation; and assessed and awarded^a total sum of Rs.91,520/' along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till its actual payment to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 5. Shri Raghavendra Pradhan, learned counsel appearing for the appellants/owner and driver would submit: he is not challenging the liability but ischallenging quantum part; the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is shockingly on higher side inasmuch as the claimant has utterly failed to prove disability certificate given by Dr. Bachhu, who is not a treating Doctor. It was further contended that only on the basis of estimate Ex.P.15 given by Dr. A.K.Verma, who was not examined as witness in the case, the learned Tribunal has fallen in error in awarding Rs.60,000/- as operation expenses. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Sunita Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant would submit: the learned Tribunal has fallen in error in awarding low amount of compensation and the amount of award deserves to be suitably enhanced. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the award impugned including the record of the Tribunal. 8. Indisputably, the accident had occurred in the year 2007 and the disability certificate was issued by Dr. Bachhu afterone and halfyears that too on the basis ofX-ray reports only inasmuch as he was not the treating Doctor. It is also ,_J.^^S^W °D,n B ^F' not in dispute that Ex.P.15 is a certificate given by Dr. A.K.Verma, by which, the Doctor has estimated the approximate expenses, which may be incurred in the operation but no operation has been suffered by the claimant. Further, Dr. A.K.Verma was not examined to prove the above document. The learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.15000/- towards loss of income for a period of 6 months for which the appellant/claimant - Nilambar was on bed rest. The learned Tribunal has also awarded Rs.11,520/- on the head of future loss of income taking into consideration the overall disability as 2% and Rs.5000/- towards pain and suffering. The amount of award on the above heads needs no interference. However, the amount awarded on the basis of estimate is without any basis and does not sustainable in law and same is disallowed. The appellant/claimant - Nilambar must have incurred some expenses in treatment and some amount on the head of special diet and attendant. In my considered opinion, the award of Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and award of Rs.5000/- towards special diet and attendant expenses would be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, the total amount for which the appellant/claimant - Nilambar is entitled to receive Rs.56,520/- in all. 9. In view of above, the award is modified to the above extent. The appellant/claimant - Nilambar is entitled to r .-^%-€ receive rs.56,520/- in place of Rs.91,520/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of claim application till its actual payment. Rest of conditions of the award impugned shall remain intact. 10. Consequently, M.A.(C) No. 179 of 2009 preferred by the appellants i.e. owner and driver is partly allowed. Since the amount of compensation of Rs.91,520/- awarded by the Tribunal is reduced to Rs.56,520/- by this Court, M.A.(C). No.591/2009 preferred by the claimant - Nilambar for enhancement of compensation is hereby dismissed. 11. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K.AgrawaI Judge --"'^s^'y v---<"i-uai.5tS'e&2f.^ ^^:...._