C VS‘ M @ <@ IN THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL NO. qw /04 / APPELLANT Smt Gauri, wife of P. Jagdeesh, aged about 3O years, resident of J Village Semra, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Mohd. Aslam son of Abdul $ Habeeb, resident of Mahadeo Ghat, Jagdalpur (Chhattisgarh) 2. Smt Vijaylaxmi Shrivastav wife 7 of Shri Shiv Prasad Shrivastav, resident of Panarapara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE) 3. The New India Insurance /" ‘ Company Limited, through : The Branch Manager, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (Chhattisgarh) // MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 L HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 465/2004 Smt. 'Gauri APPELLANT Versus RESPONDENTS Mohd. Aslam and others SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Agarwal, J , PRESENT :— Shri P.P.Sahu, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, Adv. for the respondent No. 3. None for respondent No. 1 and 2. ORAL ORDER (23-8—2010) This is claimant’s appeal for enhancement of Compensation in award dated 17—1—2004 passed by the‘ Ilnd AdditiOnal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and Hnd Additional District Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in ClaimjCasé'No. 91/2002 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 4,000/- has been awarded for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident dated 19—4—2001. Facts of the case in rief are as under:— b On 19 1 2004 the appellant was s1tt1ng 1n Tata 407 Vehicle. No MP 25/7219 along With other persons and was gomg to Jagdalpur. In Karpavand Jagdalpur road near Matiguda Mod at about 6 PM the said vehicle turned turtle1 as a result of which, the appellant sustained multiple injuries on her face. The appellant tiled claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in, short, ‘the Act’) and claimed Rs. 70,000/- as compensation against the respondents along with interest @ 18% per annum for the injuries sustained by her in the said accident. Learned Tribunal on a close crutiny of the submissions made evidence le and material placed, held the accident ccurred due to sh and neglient driving of the driver of t vehicle; awarded Rs. 4,000 along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its payment exonerating t respondent/Insurance Company from ts li he i liabity to pay compensation. The ony submiso made b Shri Sahu, learned cunsel for th appellant is that indisputably the appllant suffered distiguration of the face and, therefore, learned Tribunal ought to have awarded at least Rs. 25,000/— as comensatio for the injuries sustained by the appellant. l have eard learned ounsel for the appelant. h c l As per Section 42 the Act, permanent disfiguration of the head or face comes under the definition of permanent disability for which, the appellant is entitled for Rs. 25,000/- as no fault award, which is minimum amount to be awarded under Section 166 of the Act. Dr. Vivek Joshi (A.W.2) examined by the appellant has deposed in para 1 of his statement that the appellant was hospitalized in Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur from 19—4- 2001 upto 1-5-2001 and had sustained scar mark situated at left side of face of 1 X 1/2", scar mark on chin of 1 1/2 X W’, scar mark on nose of 1 1A x 1/4” and disfiguration of lower lip which is permanent in nature and percentage of disfiguration of face is 15%. In View of above evidence adduced by the doctor who has treated the appellant, in the considered opinion of this Court, learned Tribunal has erred in discarding the fact that disfiguration was caused r to the appellant in the said accident as immediately after the accident, the doctor has . found several injuries on her face which, as per the doctor’s opinion, resulted in permanent disability and the same s , d o ra g he /— l sin y o e e pn 1 of @ cannot be disbelieved, therefore, the contention raised by Shri Sahu has force. The minimum amount which is required to be awarded in the case is 25,000/— as provided under Section 140 of the Act. 1 0. For the foregoing, the appeal is allowed in part. The amount of Rs. 4,000/- as awarded by‘ the Tribunal, is enhanced to Rs. 25,000/— i.e. Rs. 21,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal, along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of order till its payment. The respondents No. 1 and 2 are directed to pay the above amount within a period of 3 months from today. 1 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to costs. i (’4 / y Sci/— N. K. Agama‘ . Judge i I ’