-^r rM; IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPT3R MA . t£f^ OF2005 AFPELLANT ^XAU^ANT "^^ ,.^^" iRam S/o ElwharBm Ag8aiwut35 Yeas, residenStof^®ta88 AdioteTBhsfl andDistdct Ehsnatori. ^•'^>- VERSUS ^^•••" RESPONDENTS l<hn-CLAIMANTS l^ Ashok Kumar S/o Shn Rsm Sahu, rasident ofKodapar ,T^si Kurud, Distnct Otamtan (CG). ^ TbeNalional Insutanoe Company Linttted. O.RRoad, Road Raipur (CG). MEMORANDIIM OF ACTEAL UINDER SlECTiaNl'S OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT '^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPE.^ No. 1462/2005 t^ APPELLANT HE^POZroENTS. Ganga Ram Versias 2^shol€Kum.ar aud aiiofher OHDER Postfor^s-2-2010 Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge (. r OF AT APPELLANT MISC. APPEAL No. 1462/2005 Ganga Raiii ^ HESPOilDENTS Ashok Kuiiiai' and anotlier SBs- Hon. Shri N.K. Agmival, J PRESENT :- Sliri Sunil Saliu, Advocate fpr the appellant. Shri Raj Awastl'u, Advocate for respondent No. 2. None appem's for respondent No. ]. Q_R,D_ER (^-2-2010) Per N.K. Aeariirel, J 1. This is claimants' appeal seekiiig eiiliancement of compensation iu the award dated 6-8-2005 pcissed iu .CIaim Case No. 96/2004 by Additional M.otor Accident Clamis Tribunal, Dhai-ntari, whereby and whereun.der, an aiiiount of Rs. 50,000/- along witli interest at flie rate of .6% per ai-iiiuni from the date of application tHl its payment has been awai'ded agaiiist fhe respondents and in fay'our' of the appellaut/claimaot. Facts briefly stated are as under:- The appellaiit/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (briefly <{iliG Actw] on the ground that on 12-11-2001, he was gomg to Achhota on a bicycle. When he reached near Koliyari Naka, a jeep bearing registration No. MP-23-T-1535, driven by respondent No. 1 in a rash and negligent maniier, dashed iiuii, as a result of which, he sustaiiied grievous izijury. He claimed Rs. 15,00,000/- as Gompensation for tlie injuries sustained m the above accideut, • The respondent No. 1 by filing written statement denied tlie allegation made in ti'ie claim petition and averred tfaat on tlie date of accident tlie vehicle in question. was 2. 4. (' insured with the respondent No. 2 mid fherefore, insuraiice company is liable to pay compensation, if any. 5. The respondent No. 2 filed written statement aiid denied the accident with the vehicle in question and aiso denied that the claimaiit sustained any mjmy aad has sufiered perm-anent disability. 6. Leanied Tribunal on a close scrutmy of the evidence led, material placed. aiid submissions made by the parties, awarcled Rs. 50,000/- to the clatmanits. 7. Shri Sunil Sahu, .leamed couiisel for tlie appellaiit woi.ild contend that the claiiiiant. suffered disability in Ms riglit leg to the extent of 30% due to shorteniug of liis leg by V and, tiierefore, leai-ned Tribi.mal has erred in awardin^ low compensation. He would further contend fhat iearued Tribunal has also eiTed in not awarding mterest on fhe amount of compensation awarded by it. 8. Per contra, Sliri Raj Awasfhi, learned counsel for the Tespondeut No. 2/tasurauce Compauy supported the award ai-id subinitted that the certificate issued by the Doctor in the mstant case does not disclose the shortening of leg by 2^ nor disclose any cause of disability. Mere fracture may and may not result in disability. It depends on facts aiid circumstances of each case for which the disability cei-tificate must disclose reasons therefor. Vvrithout there being aiiy mention in the disability certificate witli regard to shortening of leg, statement ofjdie Doctor that there is short.ening of leg by V2" to 2?? cannot be believed and in such circumstaiices, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 9. I have heai'd learned couiisel for tlie parties. Perused the impugned award and record of the Tribuiial. 10. It appears that tiie appellaiit iii his statement recorded on 19-8-2003 has not stated aiiytfamg with regai'd to shortening of his leg. Doctor Iqbal Parvez examined by the appeUant as AW 2 has stated in his statenient that he has found shortening of leg in the right leg of the appellant. ;an«>. ^' ^ but tl-iis fact has not been mentioned by him in the disability certillcate Ex. P-6 issued by hun on 12-9-2002. The disability certificate Ex. P-6 only contaiiis a fracture ta Tibia and Fabula in fhe right leg and that tlie appeUant sustained 30% disabllity without mentiontrig reasons therefor. In these circumstances, leamed Ti'ibunal has riglitly held that the appeUaat failed to prove loss of earning capacity due to the aforesaid mjury sustained by him in the said accident. 11* Be that as it may, in the cousidered opirdou of this Court. the appeal deserves to be allowed in part. According to me, although evidence has uot been adcluced by the appellaut regarding loss of earniug capacity but lookiiig to the nature of the injuiy and resultant disability in the right leg of 30% which is permaiient iu uature^ and pain and suffermg wliich he faced, appropriate award under the head of pain and sufiering woiild be Rs. 20,000/- instead of Rs. 10,000/- as awarded by fhe Tribunal. In the same marmer, the appenant is also entitled for a further smii of Rs. 5,000/- towai'ds medical expenses incurred by him and is also entitled for a fm-tlier siim of Rs. 15,000/- towards pai'tial disablement suffered by liim iu the said accideut and thus he is entifled for a furtlier smii of Rs. 30,000/-. Leai-ned Tribunal has also erred in uot awarding interest on the aiiiouut of coiapensation from tfae date of application. The same is awm'ded at tiie rate of 6% ger aiiiium on the total aiiiouiit of compensation i.e. Rs. 50,000/- as awarded by the Tribimal + Rs. 30,000/- as eiihaiiced by fhis Coui't, from tlie date of application till its payment. 12. Resultantly the appeal succeeds and is allowed. to the extent indicated hereinabove. 13. No order as to costs. ;'| Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge