^]^;"1; IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 M. A. fC1 N0. "2, Lf ] OF 2QQ8 ^ APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS ^; 1. \: .••pft?' <>->• Sandeep Kumar Gupta Son of Shri Baldev Prasad Gupta, aged about 23 years, Occupation Private Service, Resident of Namnakala, Nagar, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). VERSUS Virendra Kumar Markam Son of Shravan Kumar Markam, aged about 20 years, Resident of Village and Post Rajpur, Present address Mahuapara Nagar, Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). The Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Near Ram Mandir, Police Station/Tahsil Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G.). f" MEMORANDUM_QEAPPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 ..^ ^? 'ea ..-• ;V ^"> ,-• gs<\'^ .•••'^?xv" ^'•/x. ^ ^""QV -..CJ _•* A-"' 2. f c\ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPU8 SB: Hon'Me Shri Justfce R. L. Aanwar, APPEU.ANT RESPONDENTS MA (Ct No.341 of 2008 Sandeep KumarGupta. Versus Virandra Kumar Maricam arri another. ORDER For Pronouncementof Orcter <Z».06.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhmwar Judge N /^•^\ !^^ai& i ^s;^^^"-^. ^ v^y j] "^ ^s-,^' ^ Y. '"y.^'1 ws-Sat!3Bfy -2o HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BUE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 341 of 2008 Sandeep Kumar ©upta, Son of Shri BaWev Prasad Gupte, aged about 23 years, Occupation Private Service, residerrt of Namnakala, Nagar, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Virendra Kumar Markam, Son cf Shravan Kumar Markam, aged about 20 years, Resident of Village and po^: Rajpur, present address Mahuapara Nagar, Police Station and TatisU Ambikapur, District Surgu]a(C.G.) 2. The Branch Manager, United Incfla Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Near Ram Mandlr, Police Station/Tahsii Ambikapur, Surfluja APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICUES ACT. 19TO Appearance: Shri T.R. Chandrakar, counsel for the appellant. Shri Anil Gulati, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri A.K. Gupta, counsel for respondent N@5. \: ORDER (Passedon 1% .08.2011) This is claimant's appeal seeking enhancement of compensaCon of Rs.5000/- awarded in jury case by the 3rd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunat, Ambikapur, Surguja (for short 'Claims Tribunal') inclaim case No. 65/2006 vide order dated 02.01.2008. 2. As, against the compensation of Rs.1,82.760/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing claim petiUon underSecBon 166 of the Metor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accMent on 04.07.2006, e Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence, material placed and respective submissions of the partes, held that due to rash and '•^ r'""'^^'l j ^Si^ II ^ "'5U-"' ^ ^' Sk • »iei'' .1;" ~'^i£ ..-;?' ^ X negligent driving of driver of motor cycle bearing No. C.G.1S D/8639 (for short "the offending vehlcle"), Uie appellant had sustained injuri^ and as ttie offending vehicle was being drwen by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and ttiat too without there being any policy, he is responsible to pay compensation and awardeda total sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensatian along with interestat 6% per annum from the date of filing of clam petttion till the actual payment. 3. Leamed counsel for the appetlant / claimant subrnitted that the learned Clalms Tribunal has erred in awarding tow compensatton of Rs.5,000/- onty without considering the evidence adduced on behalfof the appellant. 4. On the other hand, leamed counsel appearing fer respondent No.1 argued the appellant has produced only a mediealbill and no such medical bills have been produced by him to show Uiat he had ineurred expenses substantially towards medicines for treatment. He also argued that treating doctor has not been examined. Lastly, he argued that the conH)ensatton awarded by the Tribunat is justand proper compensaUon, and therefow, need not be interferred wi . 5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and have pemsed the impugned award including record. 6. In a motor accident claim case, what is important ts that the compensation to be awarded bythe Courts/Tribunals should be just and prop.er compensaUon in the facts and cireumslances of the case. It shoutd ne'rther be a meager amount of compensaUon nor a bonanza. 1 shalt now examine as to whether the compensation af Rs.5,000/- swarded by the Tribunal is just and fair compensation in ttie facts and circumstanGes of Vw present case. 7. It is ctear from the evidence of appellant - Sandeq> Kumar ttat he te working on the post of Computer Operator in Dhiraj Engineers & Contractors, Raipur, as is evident from the Ex.P.11, which is a certificate issued by the said Company. It is also clear from his evidence that on 4.7.20)6 at 11.00 a.m: when the appellant was going to offiee on his motorcycte besfing No. C.G. 15 E/6124tthen respondsnt No.1 . who was driving the offending vrtucla in a rash and negligent manner, daslied_Uie_aBBetlant and caus«l the \: accident. fts a result such accident, e appellant sistained injuries inctuding fracture on his right leg. The evidence of the appellant was corr<Aorated by the F.I.R. Ex.P.1 and the evidence of Ritesh Kumar Gupta A.W.2 and t^ the evidence of Dr.Sanjay Tripathi A.W.3 who in his evidence has deposed that appellant sustained injuries on his right leg and advised him to take outX-ray and on X-ray he found the fracture of right clavicle bone, right metatarsal bone and fifth finger. He also deposed that the appellant had time and again taken treatment from him. According to him, due to injuries sustained by him, the appellant was required to take bed rest atleastfor three weeks. 8. On account of injuries sustained by the appellant in the moter aocident on 4.7.2006, definitely the appellant could have suffered nrental agony, pain and suffering and could not have performed his duties for a period of two months, resulting in monetaiy loss to him. Certainly the appellant might have incurred expenses substantialty on treatment as also for attendant and special diet. The Tribunal apparently has falten into error in not awarding any sum towards loss of income during the period of treatment, conveyanee, attendant, and special diet. 9. The contention of the leamed counsel for respondent No.1 that no such medical bills have been produced by him to show that he had incuned expenses substantially towards mediclnes for curing his injury is unacceptable because in every claim case production and proof of medical bills is not necessary. Itis for the sufferer or victim whether such bilts are necessary or not when claiming compensation. Even the Apex Court, hi catena of cases relating to motor accident, has not given much inyortanee to the proof of medical bills and Hs productfon in assessing compensatton to the sufferers or victims of the motor accident. 10. In view of the above, the compensation of Rs.5,000/- sawarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in my opinion, is certainly on ttie lowar side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 11. Considering all the retevant aspects of the mstter, l am of the opinion that further award of Rs.31,000/- inelusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would mate the compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and cireumstances of the present case. However, the Tribunat tws ^f ^ rightly held respondent No.1 liable for cause of accklent, and ttierefore, he shall paythe compensation amount awarded bythis Court. 12. The appeal filed by the appellant / clalmant for enhsmcement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.31,000/- inclushre of intBrest component on the enhaneed anount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Respondent No.1 - owner of offending vehicte is greuited three months time for depositing the totat sum of Rs.31,000/-, in acMIUon to the sum of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, before the conceming ClaimSo\\ Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhaiiwar Judge \: