HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BEN^H: HQN'BLE^HRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR.J. APPELLANT Claimant RESPONDENTS M.A. (Cl No. 326 of 2008 Sanjay Tiwari Versus Sheikh Salim and two others. ORDER Pronouncement of order 2.-7 .08.2010 t.L,. Jhauiwai '/• Tt'*s. sa" ^ ^^s^ '^^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Raieshwar Lal Jhanwar, J. Appellant Claimant RESPONDENTS M.A. (C) No. 326/2008 Sanjay Tiwari, S/o Late Ambika Prasad Soni, Aged about 38 years, r/o Sunder Nagar, Thana Dindayal Upadhyay Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil& District Raipur (G.G.) versus 1. Sheikh Salim, S/o Sheikh Rahim, Aged about 42 years, R/o Nurani Chowk, Raja Talab, Raipur, Thana Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) 2. M/s Rajnandgaon Road Line, Civi] Line Raipur, Through : Partner, Narendra Pal Singh Garacha, r/o Nearby Gandhi Uddayan, Civil Line, Thana, Civil Line, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of Alleged vehicle) 3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Through : Branch Manager, Divisional Office, First Floor, Madina Building, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of Alleged Vehicle) PoliceNo. 450300/31/06/00006907 Duration 1/2/07to31/01/08 Appeal uhder Section 173 of the NIotor Vehicles Act, 1988 Present: Shri Sunil Sharma, counsel forthe appellant. None for respondents No. 1 &2. Shri Neeraj Pradhan, counsel for respondent No.3 ORDER (Passedon.22.08.2010) Dissatisfied with the compensation of Rs.83,221/- awarded by the 9th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raipur (for short .t' 'the learned Tribunal') in claim case No. 88 / 2007 vide award dated 23.11.2007, the appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of •compensation in an injury case. V: .t^^''""^ '.P' ..^.!... ^ '' .l.y*a/.I '•fsy .^ ^) .<••);• 2. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that in an accident which occurred on 27.02.2007, the claimant sustained injuries on his leg, waist, both hips, head, both knees and right hand and was hospitalized. It is not disputed thafthe offending Bus bearing registration No. C.G. 04 ZA 0414 was insured with respondent No.3. Although compensation of Rs.8,25,000/- was claimed, Rs.83.221/- were awarded by the learhed Tribunal along with interest at 7.5% per annum. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant argued that according to Ex.P.20, which is a certificate issued by Dr. Sandeep Sahu A.W.1,there is 45% disability, despite this the learned Tribunal has not considered the certifiGate and has not awarded even single penny on this count. He further argued that the learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding loss of income for eight months due to injuries, due to which, the appellant was unable to attend his work. The learned Tribunal should have awarded at least suitable sum towards loss of income. Lastly, it was argued that for pain and suffering the learned has awarded a meager sum i.e. Rs.5000/- in spite of injuries sustained by him and the disability certificate produced by him and it may be enhanced. On these premises, learned counsel urged that compensation of Rs.83.221/- may be suitably enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned coynsel for respondent No.S/insurance company argued in support of the impugned award. 5. Ex.P.20issuedbyDr.SandeepSahuA.W.1isacertificatewherein it was shown that the appellant suffered 45% permanent disability. Dr. SandeepSahu A.VV.1 has stated incross-examination that he found the appellant 95% fit in respect of injuries sustained by the claimant on his right and left knees and right shoulder as those injuries are curable. Thereafter, this witness examined the claimant. In this manner, it is clear that this witness is not certain on permanent disability certificate of 45% issued by him. So far as loss of payment is concerned, the claimant himself has not stated in his evidence that how much days he was absent from his work. The Certiflcate Ex.P.80 which was issued by Gomti Agro Industries and proved by Harnarayan Mahto A.W.3 shows the payment which was paid to the appellant was Rs.5000/- per month. It is clear from Y; ^-' ..^ u.y^ '^T^f -^y "/-?'..:-^-- the above witness that he was not removed from his employment and was fit to look after clerical jobs and he was neither incompetent to do his work nor suffered from any disability and was fit to look after his works as earlier. In this way, the question that the appellant sustained loss of payment does not arise. 6. So far as absent from duties by the appellant for a period of near about 3 months is concerned, the appellant certainly would not have gone for a period of three months to attend his duties due to pain and sufferings arisingout of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. Therefore, 1 am of the view that amount of Rs.5000/-, which the appellant was getting every month as salary, would be proper for assessing loss of income for a period of three months. Thus, the loss of income for a period of three months would be Rs.15000/- which would meet the ends ofjustice and the absent for a period ofthree months, the amount would eome. Thus, total compensation isworked out to Rs.15,000/- which is sufficient in the facts and circumstances ofthe case. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant / claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The compensation of Rs.83.221/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.15,000/- with further quantified interest of Rs.1,000/- on the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.15,000/-, in addition to the sum of Rs.83,221/- awarded by the Tribunal. 8. Respondent No.3 - The Newlndia Insurance Co. Ltd., is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.16,000/- (Rs.15,000/- towards enhanced amountof compensation + Rs.1,000/- towards the quantified amount of interest bn the enhanced amount of compensation of Rs.15,000/-) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhaiiwar