HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR DIVISIQN BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, GJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMARSINHA, J. Appellnts Claimant Misc. Aopeal No. 178 of 200S Salikram, son of Shri Aajooram Soi, aged about 34 years, resident of Sorid Nagar, Dhamtari, presently residing at Hatkarra, PS Korar, District Kanker Versus Respondents 1 Bodhan Singh, son of Shri Lakhan Non-Applicants Singh, aged abouf 30 years 2 Sheikh Ashraf, son of Sheikh Hanif, aged about 35 years, Both residents of Gram Korar, PS Korara, Distt Kanker (CG) 3 National Insurance Company Ltd., GE Road, Raipur (CG) Misc. ApDeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicte Act Present : Ms Sharmila Singhai, counsel for the appellant. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. QRDER ith (04m February,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appeltat Salikram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional ^Aoto^ Accident Glaims jopLu ai|( uiiueujiep eq^ Aq psuiBisns ueeq SABy 01 psAojd ssynfui 8t.Il lo sjnieu pue jaquinuayi Suuspisuoo |eunqui SLII (3 •A}!|BUU psuieue MOU SABI( leunqui ai|) Aq papjboaj s6u!puij eAoqe 94} 'PJBMB sijl tsuiefie |B3dde Aue pa|ij iou SAEII siuapuodssj 94} sv (fr •lueiureio eqi 01 uoiiBsuedLuoo Aed 01 siqeit SBM Aueduuoo eouejnsui siji 'suoi.tipuoo Aoi|od aqi p ^peejq Aue qsiiqeiss IQU p|noo Auediuoo souejnsui ai|t pue 'pauujn Aueduioo souBLinsui iBuojtBN syi 4V.M psjnsui SBM luepiooe 94} P 3}Bp 941 UO deer spiqeA Buipueyo aAoqe 94} se '091.0/1Z/61 -SO'ON uoiiejisiBsj 6uueaq desp eloiqsA Buipusuo 9L|t ^o jSAUp 3i<uo BuiAup lus&iesu pue qsej oisnp pajjnooo luspiooe ai|i '%SZ fo tuapcs 341 oi Aiiiiqesip lusuEuujsd 01 psiinsej PUEL) it<6y siq jo sauoq eu|n pue snipej p 4ueiuie|o aqi Aq psuieisns ssjnioej.1 3W 'COOS'ZO'iZ uo luspiooe jo}ouj sqi ui.sejnioejj Buipniouisaunfu! snoues a|dji|nui psureisns tUBj>|i.|es IUELUIBIO IBI|I p|3i( }\ ajo^sq pa| souspiAa ejnus ai<i p Auiimos 8so|oB uo |eunqyi eiji (g •pjBMB sqi io Buissed 941 jo sAep oe uiqtjM lueuuieioaq} 01 uojiesusdLuoo Aedoi ejniie^ Srisjnsui p tusAe ayi ui Lunuue jsd %Q @ issjaiui liWA 6uo|B uoiiesuaduioo se -/ zSZ'08'sy jo uins |Bioi e pspjBMB leunqyi eqi 'EOOZ'ZO'I.Z uo tuapiooe joptu si|} ui 11114 Aq pauieisns ssynfui SLJI jo.t 'iov SSIOIMQA joioi/y sijuo 99 [, uoitoas jspun uoitjtsd UJIBP e Suiiu Aq lUBLureio/iueiiaddB 941 Aq psiuieio '-/OOO'Ol'Z'sy i0 uoiiesuaduioo 94} isuieee sy fe 't'OOZ/I.S'ON SSBQ LUieiou! passed 't?OOZ'Ol'9l p3}ep pje/AB spiA (,|eunqyi aq}, voys JQ.)) 'yeitueqa '(eunqyi j ill<j^3£"aa% sfy:^-'^~%. W 1:^ .1 ^Ss--'"-^ B ^^•£3 •S^ accidentand the resultant permanent disability to the extent of 25% andthe amount proved to have beenspent on treatment.awarded Rs.63,750/- towarcls loss in the future eaming capacity and Rs.16,987/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunat, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.80,737/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuriessustained byhim in the motoraccident. The Tribunal further directed paymentof interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.80,737/- @ 6% per annum in the event of insurer's failure to pay the above amount of compensation to the claimant within 30 days ofthe passing of the award. 6) Ms Sharmila Singhai, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards pain and suffering;special diet; conveyance;attendant and lossof income duringthecourseoftreatmentand inawarding low compensation of Rs.80,737/-only. 7) Shri Dasarath Gupta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited on theother hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.80,737/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstanGes of the present case. 8) Claimant Salikram was aged about 34 years on the date of the accident. He sustained fractures of ulna and radius bones of his right hand is established from the evidence of AW/2 Dr RS Thakur. The Tribunal found that the permanent disabitity suffered by the claimant on account of the injuries and the fractures was to the extentof25%. The Tribunal has certainly fallen into error in not .0 imr- t^j "':-9ss:s''./ ^&sy awarding any sum towards pain and suffering; conveyance; attendant and toss of income during the course of treatment. The Tribunal has further erred in not awarding interest on the amount of compensation and in only directing conditional payment of interest in the event of insurer's failure to pay the amount of compensation to the claimant within 30 days of the passing of the award. 9) The compensation of Rs.80,737/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 10) Considering all the relevantaspecte of the matter, and the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.21,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.80,737/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the cofripensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.21 ,000/- inclusive of interest component •on the enhanced amount of compensation; in addition to the sum of Rs.80,737/- awarded by the Tribunal. "-%• 12) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.21,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SunU Kumar Sinha Judge padma