f • ^ COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT SILASPUR DIVISiON BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA,CJ..& SUNIL J. M.A.C.CPR|No.13Gf2008 i^ ^ r^ 616 /<?5 Mukesh Agrawai aged 39 years S/o Shri Ramgopa! Agrawal resident of Qr. No. 16B,Street 5, Sector -1, Bhilai, Tahstl & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versys APPLICANT 1. Santosh Kumar Mishra S/o Dharm Raj Mlshra aged 29 years, resident of Qr. No. MIG 1375, Aditya Nagar, Durg (C.G.) 2. Smt. Sushila Mishra W/o Dharm Raj IVIsshra, resldent of Qr. No. MiG 1375, Aditya Nagar, Durg (C.G.) 3. The OrientaS insurance Company, Maiviya Nagar, Durg (C.G.) under 173 ofthe Act, Present: Shri fvianoj Paranjape and Shri V.A. Govsrdhan, learned counsei for the appeilant. (30th April, 2008) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counse! for the appsiiant are heard on admission. 2. Appsllant •- Mukesh Agrawai is sesking enhancement of the compensation awarded by Twelfth Additionai Motor Accident Clalms BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.04 11:01:17 +0530 Tribunal, (F.T.C.) Durg (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 12-09-2007, in Ciaim Case No. 78/2007. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.30,95,895/-/- claimed by claimant - Mukesh Agrawal by filing a clalm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accidenton 06-11-2005, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.2,47,930/- as compensatlon to the claimant along with interest 6% per annum from the date of fiilng the daim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 4. The Tribunal on a ciose scrutlny of the pieadings of the parties and the evldence ied by them heid that clalmant - Mukesh Agrawal sustained injuries in the motor accident on 06-11-2005; the said injuries resuited in permanent disabi!lty to the extent of 20%; the accldsnt occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offsnding vehlcie - Minsdor bearing registration No. CG 07 T/0677; as the offending vehicie - Minidor, on the of the accident, was insured with the Orienta! insurance Company, the Insurance Company was Siable to pay compensation to the claimant. 5. Considering the number and nature of the injuries sustained by the daimant in the motor accident; the period during vvhich the clalmant remained hospitaiized and bed-ridden on account of those Injuries; the amount proved to have been spent on hls treatment, the Tribunai awarded a sum of Rs.80,930/- towards medicai expenses; Rs.1,25,000/- towards ioss of future earning capacity on account of the permanent dlsablilty; Rs.5,000/- towards special diet; Rs.5,000/- p tov^ards ioss of income during the period the ciaimant remained hospitajized; .Rs.20,000/- for paln and suffering; Rs.10,000/- for future treatment; and Rs.2,000/- tovvards conveyance and thus a totai surn of Rs.2,47,930/- was awarded as compsnsation to the dalmant ' 6. Shri Manoj Paranjape and Shri V.A. Goverdhan,' learned co'unsei for the appe!lant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.2,47,930/" awarded by the Tribunai is too iow in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries sustalned by the .piaimant Jn the motor accldent. 7. The injuries sustained by claimant ~ Mukesh Agrawal in the motor acddent resulted In permanent dlsabillty to the extent of20% only. The claimant couid not estabiish that on account of the injuries and the permanent disabiiity suffered by him in the motor accident, he was rendered unflt to pursue his occupation. 8. The compensation of Rs.2,47,930/- when examined in the context of the above mentiQned broad features of the case, we are satisfied, not vvarrant any enhancement in this 9. A.s we do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bv the Tribunal, the appeai filed bv the appejlant/cjaimant for enhancement of the compensation is liabie.to be dismissed summarily. 10. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed summarijy on merits notwlthstandlngthat it is barred bytlme. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Ci^^