i, V:>1 r^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIViSIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,C.J.& Claimant Mlsc. ADDeai No. 38of 2004 Rakesh Kumar aged about 7 years, minor,S/o Vlnod Kumar Pradhan, through natural guardian Vinod Kumar Pradhan Caste Suryavanshi, R/o Janjgir Bhathapara, Ward No. 17, Tahsil and P.S. Janjgir, Distriet Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) 1. Gajju @ Gajanand Prasad Rathore, S/o late Manharan Lal Rathore, aged about 32 years, R/o. Chitarpara, Janjgir, P.S. and Tahsil Janjgir, district Janjgir-Champa. 2. National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Bilaspur (C.G.) Mjsc^Appeal unclerSection 173 ofMotorVehiclesAct Present: ShriArun Shukla, counsel forthe appellant. None for respondent No.1 though served. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. •th (26In October, 2010) The following order , of the Court was passed by This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the , compensation awarded by the Seeond Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Janjgir (forshort 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.09.2003, passed in Claim CaseNo.31/2002. 2) AsagainstthecompensationofRs.1T,75,000/-Glaimed by claimant boy Rakesh Kumar, aged about 7 years by filinga daim petition under Section166 ofthe. Motor Vehicles Actthrough his fatherVinod Kumar Pradhan, forthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 16-04-2Q02, the Tribunalawarded atotal sum of Rs.34,000/- as compensation along with Jnterest @ 8% per annum from the date offiting ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) TheTribunaI on aclose scrutiny ofthe entireevidence led before it held that claimant Rakesh Kumar sustained multjpie seriousinjuries in the motor accicient bn 16.04.2002; the accident oeeurred due to rash and negligent drivingofthe motorcyclist of theoffending vehicle Hero Monda Motorcyole bearing registration No. C.G.11/244Q; asthe above offeriding vehicle MotorGycle; on the date of the aceident was insured with the National Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach ofthe policy conditions, fhe insurance Company was tiable to pay compensation to fhe claimant. ^ • /.:. ; .••' ' .' '. .. ..•'.. .. . . " :-. .-. . . ''•• .-• '•..' : . 4) As the respondents have not flled any appeal against the award,,the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attainedfinality. i : • 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the MTJuries proved tqjiave been sustained by the elaimant in the IWIJ- -uu- '<- motor accidentand the amount proved to have been spent on the treatment, awarded Rs.15,000/- for fracture of his right teg; Rs.10,000/- towards treatment; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; and Rs.4,000/-for special diet and attendant. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.34,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuriessustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further dfrected payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.34,000/- @ 8% per annum from the date of filing or the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Aruh Shukla, iearned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation ofRs.34,000/- only. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learnedcounsel forrespondent No.2 the National Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation inthe facts and eircumstances of the presentcase. 8) Claimant Boy Rakesh Kumar wasaged about7 yearson the date of th& accident. He was a student of Third Standard. .•'' • f' :'' • ' •". " '. • •. •' '• •'. • " ."'.•-.••• '. '• His father Vinod Kumar Pradhan is a tailor by occupation. He stated that he spent aboutRs. 15,000 -17,000/- on the treatment of his son Rakesh Kumar. It is a matter of common knowledge thatsubstantial amount is reqyired to spent onthetreatment of ,. fractures. Claimant Rakesh Kumar sustained fracture of right femur is established from the evidence available on record. On account of the said fracture, the claimant must have remained bedridden for 4-6 months. 9) The compensation of Rs.34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features ofthe case, in our opinion, issomewhat on the iower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 10) Consldering aii the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.11,000/- inclusive of Interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the comrpenSation of Rs.34,000/- awarded by the Tribunai as jyst and preper Gompensation in the facts and cirGumstances ofthe present case. 11) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhanoement of the eompensation, thereTore, is allowed in part. The clajmant is awarded further sum of Rs.11,000/- inclusive of interest GQmponent on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sumof Rs.34,000/- awarded bythe Tribunal. 12) Respondent No.2 the Nationai Insurance Company Limited is granted three nionths' time for depositing the total sum of s /" ,: ' .. .•' : ••' .'..":.•• ;•".'. •. • ' •: ' ".• '• ; . Rs.11 ,OQO/- before thg concerning Claims Tribunal. 13) No order asto cosfs. Sd/- Ghief Justice Sd/- R-N.Chaiidrakar Judge sitbbu