^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (Q No. 340 of2007 APPBLLANT Smt. Dundaki VBRSUS RESPONDENTS : Deepak Kiimar Pandey & others ORDBR For consideration ^ ~) -06-201 1 Sd/- juage ^-7 -06-2011 Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta tj€_JZ— •- Sd/- Chief Justice PostforA 8 -06-2011 Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge /f^\ 1 -»^ %.. "•:%^^' '^^i-s^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc. Appeal (Q No. 340 of 2007 APPELLANT : Smt. Dundaki W/o Late Chitu aged about 45 years R/o ViLlage Chingpal PS Darbha Distt. Bastar (CG). VERSU8 RESPONDBNTS : 1. Deepak Kumar Paj-idey S/o Abhay Kumar Pandey aged about 23 years R/o ViUage Kukaaar PS Kukaaar Distt. Dantevada (CG) (Driver of the vehicle) 2. Domu S/o Sardu R/o vmage Guma PO Kodan Pal Tali. Konta Distt. Dantevada(CG). 3, Oriental Insuraace Compaay Limited, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Misc. Appeal under Section 173 offhe Motor Vehicles Act) DB: Hoa?ble Shri Rajeev Giipta, C,J. & Hoa*ble Shri N. K. Asarwal. J. Present : Shri PK Tulsyaa, Advocate for fhe appellant. Shri Shailendra Sharaia, Advocate for respondent No. 3/Insuraace Coiapaay, JUDGMBNT (Delivered on^8_.06.201l) Per : N.K. Agarwal, J. 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by the appellaiit seekiag enhancement of coiapensation ia the award dated 20,12.2006, passed by fhe IVth Addl. Motor Accklent Claims Tribimal (FTC), Bastar, Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tnbunall ia claiia case No. 81/05. 2. Brieffacts pfthe case are fhiat: on 14.05.2005, due to rash aiid (• negligent 4riving of driver of Tractor bearing registration No. CG-18-G-0338 & its TroUey No. CG-18-0-0329, the said Tractor .^•^ ^. .f' A^. 1 ?i VSIS*11^ | ^l?/ ^;^^" ,^ '"^.... ^ 'T'^^ .^ n>7 turaed turtie as a result ofwhich the appellant who was sittiug ia fhe torolley sustaiaed miiltiple injuries. As agamst the compensation of Rs. 6,15.000/- claimed by tihe appellaat/claioiant by fiUng a claini petition iinder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act?), for the iajuries sustaiaed by her in tlie motor accident on 14.05.2005; fhe Tribunal has awarded a total siiin of Rs. 2,000/- as conipensation along witli mterest @ 6 percent per anniim from fhe date of fUing of the claim petition till the date of actiial paynient. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led, niaterial placed and subiaissions made by the parties, held : accident occurred due to rash aiid negligent driving of driver of offendiag vehicle; claimaat siistained head injnry; awarded Rs. 2,000/- ia favour ofclaimant payable by the respondents jointly aiid severally along witli interest @ 6 percent froin tlie date of appUcation tiU fhe date of actUal paynient. Shn PK Tulsyan, leamed counsel appearing for the appellant would subniit: the Tribunal has en'ed ia awarding low amount of compensation of Rs. 2,000/- only, though the appellant on account of injuries sustamed by her in the accident has been rendered unfit to pursue her occupation as laboiir and therefore, award amoiint deser^es to be siiitably enhanced lookiag to the facte and circiimstances ofthe case. On the other hand, Shri Shailendra Shamia, leamed coiinsel 'l appeariiig for fhe respondent No. 3/Insiirance Company supported \ the award impugned aiid would submit : the n- F .j.^;, ..y';.-.-, X ^' "^••^•".^ •^^ 8. appellaat wifh other passengers was traveling in the offendJng vehicle as gratiiitous passenger and insurance company is not at aU Uable for paynient of compensation to the claimant iaasmuch as, the risk of the appellant/clarmant is neither statutorily required to be covered under the policy nor the iasuraace company had teken such risk by entering into special contract with the insiired/owner by charging extra premiuia therefor. He woiild fiirther siibmit in the facts and circumstaaces of the case, the amount awarded by the Tribiinal is just and proper aad needs no interfereiice. As fhe respondent No. 3/0riental Insurance Corapany bas not challenged its UabUity by preferrmg appeal, tiierefore, the fiaduigs of the Tribunal holding the Insiirance Company liable for paynient of coinpensation to the claimant has now attained finaMty. It appears fhat the appellant has iitterly failed to prove auy permaaent disability occurred on account of injiiries siistajned by her in the said accident. As per statement para 3 of Dr, V.K. Joshi (AW-2), who was not a treatmg doctor, appeUant did not sufFer peiTiianent disability. However, it is also tnie that appellaat was aged about 58 years on the date of accident, she was a labour by occupation; sustained serious injiiries iacluding head iajury as established by Dr. V.K. Joshi), fherefore, she inust have suffered paia and sufllerhig, niiist have spent at leasf some amoiint on treatnient and must have \ suffered loss bfearauig for few days. The comLpensatiton of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by fhe Tribunal, when exainined in the Ught of the above mentioned broad TISc -^ features of flie case, ia our opiiiion, is certabily on the lower side aiid deserves to be enhanced siiitably. 10. Consideilag all the relevant aspects ofthe matter, we are ofthe opiaion fhat further award of Rs. 10,000/- inchisive ofmterest coniponent would make the compensation of Rs. 2,000/- awarded by the Tribiinal as jiist and proper compensation in flie facts aiid circumstances of the present case, 11. The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of fhe compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded furfher suui of Rs. 10,000/- inclusive of interest coniponent in addition to flie sura of Rs. 2,000/-, awarded by theTribunal. 12. Respondent No. 3/ Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three raonfhs' time for deposituig fhe total sum of Rs. 10,000/- before ftie conceraiag Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge ^ ? .u v