<3) HIGH C30URT OF CHHATnSGARH AT BILA8PXJR Mlsc.Appeal ( C 1 No. 1S72/2009 8B: Hon*ble Slurl Justdce R.L. Jluknwnr APPBLLAIIT Baldev Das VCT»U» RE8PONDBNTS Santosh Ktuuar aad 2 ofliers ORDBR Post for order oni^ .5.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge 13 ,o,^uir ,,,..-. J..^-:.!.- ^;......J ^^•^^. /& ^ t&:yf£S!S^ || M&i^ j '%.. ^s '^:,.-. j^ I- ..' / / V '^^\,y HIGH COURT OF CHHATH80ARH : BILASPUR^^^i^iS.^,. 8INQLB BBMTCH: HON*BLB 8HRI R.L^HAWWAR. J. ,» Misc. Aimeal (d No.1572 of2<X» ^PBLLAWT Baktev Das, son of Naali^aa , Manikpuri, aged sSbc^Ji:^:'''yesa^^^ R/o viUagp Borsi, P&lfce Static^ 1 and Tahsil Mag^rtod, Distrrct "| Dhamtad (CG) NOMAPPUCANT8 VBRSU8 1 Saiitosh Kumar S/Q ^ JUate^^^ L^khanalal Dhruv^ agc^^^i^ years, R/o Rajpury I^olice Station Magariod, Distrtct Dhamtari (CG) 3 v^'- 2 Jageshwar Siiiha, s/o Rodhjelal Sinha, aged about 38 years, R/o viUagp Rajpur, PoHce Statfem Ma^ariod, District Dhamtari (CG) | ? 3 Bremch iManager, Bajaj AHiaoce Gexieral Insuraiice Compaiiy Umited, Shiv Mohan BhawaEfc, 1 Yidhan Sabha Road, PaadjC ; District Raipur (CG) MISCBLLANBOU8 APPBAL UNDBR SBCTIOII 173 OP THB MOTOR VBHICLBS ACT. 1988 Appearance: Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri S.P. Sahu, counsel for the appeUaat None for respondente No. 1 aad 2. Shri Abhishek Sixiha aad Shri G.S, Patel, couasel for respondent No,3, R.L.Jhanwar, J ORDBR ( 13.5.2011) Appellant- Baldev Das is seekitig eaahancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claiixis I.....J /"./T .f&.^ ^ ll^g^l g ^ ^;:^ KM—-::\ Tribunal (FTC) Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (for short <the Tribunal^ vide award dated 16.9.2009, passed in Clauu Case No. 19/2009. 2, As agauast fhe compensation of Rs.4,00,000/-, claimed by the appellaiit/claimaaat by filbag a claim petition uiider Sectioti 166 offhe Motor Vehicles Act for tihie mjuries sustaiaed by hiaoi in fhe nxotor accident on l.12.2008, at about 6,00 p,ixi.y fhe '":w-^ Tribunal awarded a total suiu of Rs. 1,19,600/- as compeasat»&n,» to the claimant along wifh mterest @ 6 % p.a. firom the ^ate of filing offhe claim petitton tiU fhe date of actual paymexit. - 3, Tfae Tribiiaal on a close scrutioy of fhe entire evideil^e led before it held fhat tihe claimaat- Baldev Das sustamed serioiia injuries mcludmg fracture ia fhe motor accident on 1,12.2008; fhe accldent occurrcd due to rash aad negUgent driviag of llie driver of the offendmg vehicle - Tractor beariag rcgistration No, CG 05 ZC 2535; as the offending vehicle Tractor on the date @f ftie accident was msured wifh fhe Bajaj AUiaace General Insuraace Compaay Liaiited and fhe Insurance Ctompaxiy coiild not establish any breach of fhe policy conditions, tihie Insuiance Compaay was liable to pay compensation to fhe claimaiit 4, As ffae rcspondents have not jBled any appeal agaiast the award, the above jBndings recorded by the Tnbunal have now attafaied fmality. 5. The Tribunal considerbig the number and natitre of injuries proved to have been sustamed by the claimant iii the motor accident, 50 % disability aad the amount pxoved to have been spent on his treatment, awarded Rs,19,000/- towaids medical expenses; Rs.2,000/- towards special diet; Rs.5,000/ towards paia aad suffering; aad Rs.93,600/- towaxds losa of -future iacome. The TribuHal, fhus awarded a total sum of Rs.1,19,600/-/- as compensation to fhe claimant for fhc iiyuuies £......I Ifc^.i 1^&;111 ^. ~^. .w ^•g^^' ,-. lt.,.".i' sustaiaied by him ia fhe xnotor accidexit. The Tnbunal farther ^ directed payment of iaterest on the above amoiiat of compensation ofRs,1^19,600/- @ 6% per anaartim fix>m fhe date ^ offiliag ofthe claim petltion tiUl fhe date ofactual paymeiat.-^^^^^^^ . 6. Learaed counsel for the appeUant argued fhat TtBbuiaal has ^ erred ia awardiag low coxxipensatkm of Rs,l»19,600/a- oiily . fhough fhe appellaot sustaixied xxmltipte seiicms iiiguii^^^^ - mctuding fracture ia fhe motor accideirt resulting iaito pcsnaaiijent ? disabiHly to fhe exteixt of 50 % asad fhe Tdbuaaal has also iiot | property assessed the iacome offhe appeflant 7. On the other hand, leamed counsel fbr respbiadent No. 3/ , Bajaj AUilance General Insurance Company Umited supportetl . fhe award aod corttexided fhat the Tribunal has ^ssessed tto . incoxae on higher sMe suid fhereby awarded high compensatton of Rs,l,19,600/-, which shoxiM be rcduced, The appellant/claimaaait was woxlcmg as a Kotwar, fhercfi>rc, 110 compensatton sfamild be awarded on account ofloss offuture mcome; only compensatioxi should be awarded on account ofmedical expenses aad pain axid suffisriug, 8, In a motor accidexxt claim case, what is maportaiit is that, fhe compensation to be awarded by the Gourte below should be just aad proper compensation ia the facts and circumstanoes of fhe case. It should neifh.er be a meager amount ofcompensatioa, nor a Bonanza. 9. Now we shaU examine as to whether ffae compensatioa of Rs.1,19,600/- is just and proper compensation in tfae facts and circumstaiices offhe prcsent case. 10, It is clear JGrom fhe evidence and the documenta that the ^ appellaat Baldev Das was a Kotwar and he susta&attl multiplc mjzudes in fhe motor accident Medical certi&cate Ex, P/7 stoows i..........J ® 50 % pennanent disabitity, Accordiag to the appellant, bemg a Kotwar, he was gptting Rs.1800/- per month as salaxy axkd b^ was eaniing Rs.1200/- per moiith by doing laboiir woilE< %to^ Tribunal has assessed the income Rs,1800/- p,m, as salaiy amil Rs.1200/- p.m., earmng by labour work. After apprcdtatiag ttusE :"-^":' '^ evidence, fhe Tribunal has considered fhat tlierc is iw toss income ofpaymeat/salaryofRs.lSOO/- p.m^ but fhere iatosa^ mcome of Rs.1200/- p.m., which the appellant/claiuiaat was eammg by doing laboiir work. On the basis ofthis, the Tribi^ial has considered loss of iiicome of Rs,1200/- p<m, aod assesamg 50 % permaaent disabillty, calculated Rs.600/- p,m, and Rs.7200/- per year. Considermg fhe age <rf fhe appeMaat as ^B yrears, applied multipUer of 13 aod calculated fhe loss offirtoic income Rs.93,600/-. 11, In fhis way» it is clear fipom fbe award fhat considerixi^ atl factors^ fhe Tribiinal has rigpiffy assessed fhe loss of futi3affe iacome aad it has also awarded compensation towaxtls medical expenses, special diet aiid pain aad suffering, Thercfore, ftxe compensation of Rs.l,19,600/-awarded by fhe Tribuxial is Jixafe and proper compensation m the facts and circzimstaiices of fhe present case, It is neifher meager nor a bonaEusa. Theceforc, fhere is no need to iaterfere m fhe awaid passed by the Clsrfms Tribunal, 12. Consequentty, the appeal filed by tfae appeUajit/cImTnant is liable to be dismissed aad it is hercby dismissed. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^?^^- -'^