HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENGH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA,C.J.& HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHCHANDRAKAR.J. Misc.ADpeal No.80rof2004 Appellant Ciaimant Respondents Non-applicants Djlip Gond s/0 Chamry Gond aged' about 32 years, R/o Village Kuhri Post Jutki, Police Station Tumgaon, distt. MahasamundC.G. VERSUS Shekh Moin Khan S/o Shekh Salim Khan, aged about 22 years, R/o near Taj Kirana Stores ward N0.4, Nayapara Mahasamund Distt. Mahasamund C.G. Laxminarayan Yadav S/o Punu Ram Yadav, aged about 25 years, R/o. }<a\\ Nagar, Pandri Raipur C.G. Shekh Habibuddin S/oShashshiddin aged about 30 years, Shekh Mansur Khan S/o Mahbu Khan aged about 30 years R/o Nayapara, ward No. 11,Mahatma Gandhi Road, Mahasamund Distt. Mahasamund C.G. The Oriental Insurance jCompany Limited, Kaehahari Chowk; Madina BuildingRaipur, Distt. Raipur(C.<3.) ftRpeal under Section 173'bfthe Motor Vehicles %ct. 1988 Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, leamedcftunset for the :appe|lant.^ :..':' ::-,'':1: 1;'" ' •"• ' '^-' 1 Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel Tor respondent No.5 ^ QRDER (21st September, 2010) The foltowing ortler of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. • Appellant Dilip Gond i§ seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for shprt'the Tribunal') vide award dated 23.01.2004, passed in Claim CaseNo. 16/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.4,25,000/- claimed by the appellanV claimant by filing a claim petition underSectiori 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injunes sustajned by him in the mcrtor aecidentoin 24;02.2002;^e^ib^ of RsJ2^0A as comperisation al&ng with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the clajm petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Dilip Gond sustained multiple injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 24.02.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent drivingof the driver of the offending vehicle Metador bearing registration No.CG-04/8587; as the above offending vehicle Metador on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance ©ompany could not establish any breach of tbe policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liabletopaycompensationtotheclaimant. S5iW ifSSs illiffi ^.^^^' .i^.^^ .;:^^^^^^Si^i^| ^iEHaaa •*'•"• -'"-.3^^. •Aa&. sh.i .-f"- • •1^-' "'• ^ ^s-'^'" 4) As the respondents tlave not^filecKan^aFJ^eal against'the a\^td, the above findings recprdeci tiy ^e^Fibunal ha^^ now attained finaltty. :• ?;''?.^l^a^,!£Kr? ';.":..' 5) The Tribunal cohsidering'tHCriBmB^anEl nature bf Ihe injuries proved to have been 'syst^peti:; by.ffie claimant in the motoraccidenf and the amount^M'owgctafoftave beenspent onthe treatment,awardedRs 7,200;'-towaiSsloss o^ income duringthe period of his treatment; RS.S.OOQK towards; pain and suffering, The Tribunal, thus, awar^ed ;a@teta) sum of Rs.12,200/- as compensation to the G|aima(^»|'|te^Trjbynal Turther djrected payment of ^interest^|tl|te|^f30»^i^ountr; i^ of '^:y ,;^^®?:;^^;i@s;SSt3?^^».^:::-£,:• &y'.. ; ^Wi':.' Rs.12,20(^t@9%^i||rUrgS»^S|iSclat&^f>li»®ofll:t^c|aim :petitiQn.tillitHe^date:'of'a||g|i^ayn|S|it.^:;.w";-'^ ^ '.^ ;',,' .,;• • 6) Shri Shivendu R;|j|:i^,|leamectc6unsel^the^appellant submitted that the£ ingBnal has erredi in awardihg low compensation of f?s¥l.2,2QQj6-only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple'^n<oi.isinjuFjes ineludingfracturesinthemotor accident, resulting^ jd 'perrnanent djsability to the extent of 40%; 7) Shri SudtiiF-Agrawei^ learned Counselfer respondentNo.5 the Orientat iB^yf^nee Company l.imited, 00 thei other hand, ;/ ..' . ~.:^' :'.- '• • '. ""' ' • •• • .•."- " •:. '•'.'• • .'••".:.'• •".-..:".' . ;.' ...-.:.•:. • : [';'./ -...-.. supportect tbei^ward and contended that the corripensation of Rs.12,2(M3/-..awa^edL fav the Tribunal is^just^ and proper compensatioBintbe'faGtsandeirGUEnstanisesTOf-thepresentcase. 8) Claujnant Djlip gondwassaged abc^;32 yeare on the .aGCjdent. ]_ He was Coolie/Mamat (Porter) by occypation. aii; ••f^a ®' m^w The evidence of AW/3 Dr GL Chandrakar establishes that the claimant sustained fractures in the motor accident. It is a different matterthattheclaimantcould not estabtishsuccessfully before the Tribunal that those injuries and fracturesresulted in any permanent disability. It is a matter of common knowtedge that substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. It is also apparent that on account of those fractures, the claimant could not have pursued his occupation of Coolie/Hamal (Porter) fora period ofabout 4-6 months. 9) The compensation of Rs.12,200/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentloned broad featurjesQftthecase,in;qurQpinio|T,;Jscertairiiyonthelowerside and deserves to be enhariGed suitably. 10) Considering alt the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.15,000/- inclusive of interest eomponent on the ehhanced amountof eompensation would makethe compensation of Rs.12,200/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe presentcase. 11) The ,apDeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for /" ' '- ' •-•.'."' .... ..''•.. . . ".. • : . '.••.,- enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is atlowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.15,000/- inclusive of interest componerit on theenhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.12,200/-awarded by the iTribynal. •s-s 12) Respondent No.5 the Orientallnsurance CompanyLimited is granted three months' time for depositing the sum of Rs.15,000/-beforetheconcemingCtaimsTribunal. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Ju^ge ? subbu <' ;;^,;;s-L':^'^•it'"^~<?i": ^^..i'-^i - •^a^e^t.SV