© G-r^- G IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (Q N0. ^^s -^^^ ••^... ^^ ^ ••- ; ^"^ ^^ ^' ^^ ^.i3-i.'-i i--ul,..Utll / 2009 Appellant A^plicant y'" .n/^ ^^ .^^y ^\-^v' .<-'-'' ,-^^'S£^f . *L\vf- Versus Respondents / ]'*iTon-Applicants 1. Laxmi Prasad S/o Ramji Lal Sahu, Aged about 40 years R/o Kasdol (Balar road), P.S. & Tahsil - Baloda Bazar, Distt. Raipur-fC.G.) Ganesh S/o Leela Ram Kaiwartya Aged about 32 years, R/o Mudpar, Post Office - Malda, P.S. &, Tahsil - Kasdol, Distt. Raipur- (C.G.) —Driver 85 Owner—ofVehicle No.C.G.-04-HA/0433. Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Office - Raipur, Distt. Raipur-fC.G.) Office Address -1st Floor, Madina Building, Jail Road, Raipur-(C.G.) —InsuranceCompany— MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE VEHICLES ACT ^"^-^ a 'wsy f3 Y^<^/^ ^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.fQ No. 328/2009 Laxnri Prasad Versus Ganesh and another Appearance: Shri A.P. Sharma, couasel for the appellant. Shri Dharmesh Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT ORAL ORDER (21.07.2010) This appeal under section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act has been preterred by the injured claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation. He has been awarded a sum of Rs. 1,43,000/- as compensation by the claims tribunal. (2) The appellant received injuries on his right leg, head,chest and hand and was admitted in Ram Krishna Hospital, Raipur, from 15/05/07 to 30/05/07 and thereafter from 3/07/07 to 13/07/07. He could not attend his job for 5 to 6 months and a steel rod has been inserted in his right leg. Leamed claims tribunal has discussed the issue regarding the amount of compensation for which the appellant is entitled, in para 18 to 24 ofthe award. The tribunal has awarded Rs. 50,000/- for the injuries and mental agony, pain and suiTerings. t a "s '?:• For expenses on treatment a sum of Rs.30,000/- has been awarded and for future expenses in the treatment Rs.10,000/- has been awarded. (3) Leamed counsel for the appellant submits that the claimant had submitted proof regarding medical expenses in the form of prescription, medical bills and receipt of payment made to the hospital/nursing home and the medicine shop and yet the tribunal has not considered as to for what amount the bill stand for. He would farther submit that for expenses on treatment, the tribunal should have awarded at least Rs. 2 lakhs. (4) Oa the other hand, leamed counsels for the respondents have opposed the prayer and have submitted that the tribunal has properly assessed the material available on record and the amount awarded on this head is sufficient. (5) Since, tribunal has referred to Ex. A-4 to A-101 ia para 19 of the award, tiiis court perused the said documents on which it clearly appears that the documents are relating to the expenses for transportation of the claimant from tlie place of accident to the hospital, the bills for purchase of medicines from the Ram Krishna Medicos, which is situated in the Ram Krishna Hospital premises. Ex. A-42 is a receipt of payment of Rs.6,480/-, Ex. A-43 is for Rs.8000/-, A-44 is for Rs.10,000/-, A-45 is for 13,962.96/- and A-46 is.for Rs.10,000/-. Similarly, A-47 is for a sum ofRs.5000/-. From ^ffSsms,, •^\ •wy -y k3 3 these documents, it is clearly established that the appellaiit has made payments ofthese amount to the hospital. The tribunal has thus failed to scrutinize the bills and receipts of payment made by the claimant to the hospital. This court directed the leamed counsel for the parties as to calculate the payments made through bills Ex. A-4 to A-101. Leamed counsel for the appellanVclaimant has calculated the payments made through these documents. The sum total comes to Rs. 94,149.38/-. (6) The tribunal has already avvarded Rs. 30,000/- as expenses already incurred. Therefore, on deducting Rs.30,000/- from the sum total of the bills i.e. Rs. 94J49.38/- the difference comes to Rs.64,149.38/- rounded off at Rs.64,000/-. Thus, on the head of expenses for treatment, the claimant is entitled to further amount of Rs.64,000/-. (7) Thus, the appeal is partly allowed and it is directed that the appellant shall be entitled for an additional sum of Rs.64,000/-, in ajldition to the amount already awarded by the claims tribunal. Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge vn