RIQg§GURT OF GHHA??i$§ARH A? gimw'tj? Divismw EENCg Versgg Sayed Zakir Hasaa: $Jo Sayed ‘iunus M“ AE, Ri’o $héé§a Para, Mahaéev ‘u’ard, Kankea Sisti Kanker {CG} 2 Shaikm Ahamad: S/a Md Jaiii Ahmed, R/a RES Camny, Kanker, Disit Kanker (Chhat‘aisgarh) 3 The New India insumnce Co. Ltd, Nea? J’nankar Cinema; Jagdamur, Basia: (Chhatiisgarh) Misceknwug AQQeaE unéier Seatign 1:53 af the 3a mfju‘JE' é- ‘I vEhECsu 7' lg Am. né ?Easea€ : Shri F’rafm'i Bharat and Shri Santosh Bharat, counsei for the appeiiant. Sha’i Rajemdra Fate} for respondents No.1 am 2. Shri $udhir Agrawai, counse’} for ¥espondent No3. . (25th Aagasa, amo; The foiiowing order of {he Court was passed by Rageev Gupta, CJ. Aoperiant Umar Hayat Khan is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Aoditionai Motor Accident /n // P ' CGRAEVE: kEQWBLE SHRE ’ , HGWBLE SHR: gami. KUMAR 8E. 'HR w' AxageEEag‘eEI maéman‘c Misc gnaeai Ne.653 0f 2&52 Umaa' Hayat Khan, Sis La? eUmar Earaj Khan, 58 yeam, R/c- Sargipa Para, Kondagaon, Digit Ea$tar {Chha%t§sgarm N 0 Ciaims Tribunal. Jagdaiaur (for short ‘the Tribuna!’) vide award dated 10.05.2602 passed in Claim Case No219’/‘22001. 2) As against the compénsatian of Rs.7,70:000/—, ciaimed by the aboeliant/claimant, by fiiing a claim petition under Section $66 of the Meter Vehicies Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 03.05.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of r Rs.7D,GGOI- as compensation along with interest @. 9% per annum from the date of the tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual V - payment. 3) The Tribunai on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Umar Hayat Khan sustained multipie serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 03.05.2061; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigeht driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo hearing redistration No.CG-OS/G786 : as the offending vehicle Tate Sumo on the date of the accident was insured with the New india insurance Company Limited, the lnsurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment. awarded Rs.lS,OOG/— towards medicai expenses; Rs.32,0®0[- towards pecuniary loss; Rsi (3,600/— for future treatment; RsSDODI- (U0 far pain and suffering; RsSEGUL towards sg3eciai diet and Rs.3,GDO/- towards conveyance. The Tyibunal. thua awarded a d . iota: sum of Rs.70,009]— as compensation to the craimant for the inguries sustained by him in the motor accidenE. The Tribunal further directed payment of intereet on the above amount of compensation of Rs.7G,GOGI— @ 9% per‘annum from the date of the filing of the ciaim petition tiii the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Praiuil Bharai and Shri Santosh Bharai, learned counsel a for The appellant submiited that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs7G,000/- oniy: though the appeliant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuties inciuding fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 62%. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawat, learned counsei for respondent No.3 the New india insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of RsjtlGDGI- awarded by the Tribunal is juet and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 also supported the award. 9) Appellant Umar Hayat Khan was aged about $8 years on the date of the accident. lt has been estabttshed beyond any shadow of doubt that the claimant sustained multiple inturies inctudino fracture tn the motor accident. tt is a matter of common knowledde that substantiat amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. Cn account of the injuries and the fractures sustatned by the claimant in the motor accident, he couid not have attended his business for a penod of about 4-6 months resuiting in monitorv loss to him. The compensation of Rs.70:OOO/- awarded by fhe Tribunai when examined in context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, is certainly on the tower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 1G) Considering aii the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of RsttDGGf- inoiusive of interest component woutd make the compensation of Rs.7G,QfJOf- awarded by the Tribunal asjust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) The appeat fiied by the appeiiant/ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is aiiowed in part. The ciaimant is awarded further sum of Rs.1 1 ,DGGI— inciusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of RSTQODGI- awarded by the Tribunai. 12) Respondent No.3 the New india insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the totai sum of Rst 1 ,OGDI- before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. / 13) No order as to costs. ,_.— sd/_ Sunil Kumar Sinha gr Judge pad ma 5d]- CHIEF JUSTICE Ni