HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A,No.4?Oof2006 APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Shekh Murad Versus Abdul Jahim Khan and others. ORDER t For Pronouncement of Order ^<02.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhaiwar Judge k ff / HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Raieshwar Lal Jhanwar. J. M.A. No. 490/2006 Aopellant : Shekh Murad, aged about 40 years, S/o Late Shekha Kadar, Caste - Muslim, R/o Adarsh Nagar, Kawardha, Tah. Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham (C.G.) Respondents versys 1. Abdul Jahim Khan, aged about 28 years, S/o Abdul Salim Khan. 2. Abdul Shamim Khan, aged about 26 yerars, Both' R/o Adarsh Nagar Kawardha, Tah. Kawardha, Distt. Kabirdham. 3. TheOrientat Assurance Company Ltd., Through its Divisionat Manager, Division Office Malviya Nagar, Durg. C.G. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri Abhijeet Sarkar, counsel for the appellant. Shri Akhtar Hussain, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri A.K.Athaley, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (PassedorQ^_.02.2011) Appellant - Shekh Murad is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (F.T.C.), Kabirdham (for short' the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.01.2008 in Claim Case No.06/2005. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.14,44,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 17.04.2004, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.1,30.000/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest at7% per annum from the date of fiting of claim petition till the date of actual payment. :9sy^ g -^/ ^ 3. The Tribunal on close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it, held that due to rash and negligence driving of Scooter bearing No.C.G.07 F/2472 the claimant, being pillion rider, sustained injuries including fracture in left leg in the motor accident on 17.04.2004; as the offending Scooter was, on the date of accident, insured with respondent No.S/insurance company, the insurance company was liable for payment of compensation to the claimant. 4. As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5. The Tribunal considering the number and nature of injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on his treatment, awarded Rs.25,000/- for physical and mental agony; Rs.25,000/- towards loss income for a period ofone and halfyear; Rs.63,962/- towards expenses incurred during treatment; Rs.6000/- towards conveyance allowance and Rs.10,000/- towards expenses to be incurred in future and thus the Tribunal avrarded total compensation of Rs.1,29,9627- and which amount, if rounded of, come to Rs.1,30,000/-. The Tribunal further awarded interest at 7% per annum from the date of claim petition till its realization, while fastening the liability to pay compensation on the insurer. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding less compensation without there being seen injury properly. The Tribunat ought to have taken the disability suffered by the appellant at 35%, as given by the Medical Board. The Tribunal has erred in awarding lump-sum compensation. The Tribunal should have considered the disability certificate to the extent of 35% and then should have assessed on the basis thereof. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.S/insurer supported the award and contended that compensation of Rs.1,30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and fair compensation in the facts and cireumstances of the case. 8. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and fhe documents available on record, it is clear that the claimantfappellant was 1 s'v aged 40 years on the date of accident. He was engaged in looking after his business and was earning Rs.5000/- and had also agricultural income of Rs.25,000/-. It is also clear that he sustained injuries over his left leg in the motor accident and due to such accident his leg was shortened by 4 cm. as stated in medical certificate given by Dr. M.R.Deshpande A.W.2. He has also stated that the appellant got operated at Raipur. He has further deposed that 35% permanent disability can be cured. 9. Having discussed above, it is clear that claimant/appellant could not have been able to perform his duty for a co'nsiderable time. Taking into account this fact, the learned Tribunal, on the basis of daily wages being paid to a daily wager, held that the treatment was continuing for considerable time of one and haff year and assessed his income Rs.25,000/- towards loss of income for a period of one and half year, which 1 am ofthe considered opinion, is on lower side. 10. On due consideration of submissions of learned counsel for the parties and all relevant factors, including the above broad features of the case, 1 am of the opinion that further award of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.1 ,30.000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant / claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The appellant/claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation, in addition to the sum of Rs.1 ,30.000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12. Respondent No.3 - The Oriental Assurance Co. Ltd., is granted three months' time for depositing the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.20,000/- before the conceming Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar 'e V ^~i. r