HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT BJLASPUR DIVSSION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRt RAJEEVGUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellant Claimant Misc. Appea! No.909 of 2005 Shatruhan @ Shatrughan Yadav, aged about 38 years, S/o Shri Ram Manohar @ Sarha Yadav, R/o Viilage Bhothsdih (Lapar) PS Masturi, Distt Bilaspur (CG) c c VERSUS Respondents 1 Sant Ram Sarthi, aged about 30 year, Non-applicants S/oBahoran Sarthi, R/o Viltage Maturi, PS Masturi Dlstt Biiaspur (CG) 2, Mohd Yunus Rizvi, aged about 38 years, S/o Mohd Hasan; R/o Nehru Nagar, Bilaspur (CG) 3 Prabhat Awasthi, aged about 43 year, S/o Narayan Awasthi, R/p Vlilage Masturi, PS Masturi, Distt Bilaspur (CG) 4 The New !ndia Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Biiaspur (CG) Miscellaneous Appeal under Sect|orr173_of Motor Vehicies Act Present : Shri Ravindra Agrawa!, counse! for the appeitant. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsef for respondent No.4. ORDER (04tnApriJ,2011) The folSowlng order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. li^ This Is claimant's appea! for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe9thAdditionalMotorAcddent Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short !the Tribunal') vide award dated 23.04.2005; passed in Ciaim Case No. 168/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.15,19,000/-, claimed by the appeliant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.08.2004, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.60,800/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ctaim petltlon tiil the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that ciaimant Shatruhan @ Shatrughan sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident on 06.08.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negtigent driving of the driver of the offendlng vehlcie Truck bearing registration No.CG-11-ZB/0129; as the above offending vehicie Truckon the date ofthe accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the tnsurance Company could not estabSish any breach of the policy conditions, the Snsurance Company was iiable to pay the compensation to the ctaimant. 4) The Tribunai considering the number and nature of the injuries proved 16 have been gustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.35,000/- towards ioss in the future earning capacity on account of the permanent disability; Rs.10,000/- towards medlcal expenses; ^^^ c c Rs.9,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.800/- for attendant; Rs.500/- for special diet; and Rs.500/- for conveyance. The Tribunai, thus, awsrded a totat sum of Rs.60,800/- as compensation to the claimant for theinjurles-sustained by him in the motoraccident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compen§ation of Rs.60,800/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the cialm petition til! the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Ravindra Agrawai, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently arguerf that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.60,800/- only, though the appeilant/daimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fracturesin the motor accident resuiting in permanent disabiiityto the extent of30%. 6) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.4 the New india Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offendlng vehicle Truck on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.60,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the presentcase. -:,--^^-.- 7) Claimant Shatruhan @ Shatrughan was aged about 38 years on the date ofthe accident. He was milk-seiier by occupation. His inltial medical examination certificate reveals a solstary injury on his ieft ankte. Surprisingiy, in the disabiSity certificate issued by the Medica! Board after about five months ofthe accident, reference has been made to some injury on his hand, which also led to the perrnanent disabillty. ;^ L 8) The compensation of Rs.60,800/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features ofthecase, and the other attending circumstances, we are satisfied is justand proper compensation and does not calt for any enhancement in thisappeal. 9) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, isliable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- -- Chief Justice v Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge r [1 padma -^ —^--...