HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Sinaie Bench : Hon'bie Shri R.LJhanwar, J. MiscelSaneous AppeaE (Cl No.944/2007 Appegiant Applicant RespQndents Non-ApDlicants Trisam Netam, S/o Sukhram Netam, aged about 13 years, Through : Guardian - Father of the minor Sukhram Netam S/o Misoram Netam, aged about 33 years, Caste Gond, R/o Piatpara, Lanjoda, Poiice Station Kondagaon, Dssrict Bastar (CG) versus 1. Tuieshwar Kumar Sahu, S/o D.C. Prasad Sahu, Aged about 32 years, R/o Viilage Nimoda, Police.Station Abhanpur, District Raipur (CG) (Driver) 2. Yogesh Kumar Sahu, S/o D.C.Prasad Sahu, Aged unknown, R/o Village Nimora, Post Bendari, District Raipur (CG) (Owner) 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Mandai Office-01, Raipur (CG) (Insurance Company) Appeal underSection 173 of the Motor Vehides Act 1988 Present : Shri Manoj Paranjpe with Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for the appeliant. Shri U.N.S.Deo, counsei for respondent No.3. None for respondents No. 1 & 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 10th March, 2011) Heard. 2. This appeai is directed against the award dated 22nd June, 2007 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunai 4F.T.C.), Kondagaon (henceforth 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.56/2007, whereby a sum of Rs.2,000/- has been awarded towards compensation in an injury case. ^^ ^. ^:; ^...^\ 3. Brieffacts, as per pieadings of the case, are that on 02.02.2005 at 5.00 p.m. when the appeilant was going on his cycle from Chichipara towards his house, at the same time, respondent No.1, who was driving TATA Sumo bearing No. C.G. 04 B/6339 (for short 'the offending vehicie') in a rash and negiigent manner, hit the cycle, as a resuit of which. the appeilant sustained multiple injuries inciuding fracture. 4. Seeking compensation of Rs.1,84,500/- claim petition was fiied pleading that due to injuries sustained by the appellant he was permanently disabled. The respondents denied the averments pleaded in the claim petition. They specifically pleaded that the injured himself was responsible for the accident. 5. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties and appreciation of the evidence minutely, the Tribunal heid that respondent No.1 was liabie for cause of accident; due to accident caused by respondent No.1, the appellant received multiple injuries and as the offending vehicle was insured with insurance company, the insurance company was also fiabie to pay compensation and awarded lump-sum compensation of Rs.2000/- towards injuries sustained by the appeilant in the motor acddent. 6. As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the impugned award, the findings recorded bythe Tribunal have now attained finality. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that in order to prove the medical certificate evidence of concerned Doctor was required and for that he has filed one application for examination of Doctor concerned and that the Tribunal has erred in rejecting the application. He prayed that the matter be remanded back to the Tribuna! for adducing evidence of Doctor concerned or the compensation awarded by the TribunaE may be enhanced. 8. On the other hand, iearned counsel for respondent No.S/lnsurer argued In support ofthe impugned award. \A 9. In order to appreciate the arguments, ! have perused the record and impugned order. A perusal of record has cleariy revealed that the appeliant met with accident on 02.02.2005 due to rash and negligent ^ (\ (1 driving of respondent No.1 and in such accident, the appellant received the following multiple injuries: i. Multiple smatl fractures, abrasion over right foot. li. Multiple small fractures, abrasion over right below knee. iii. Multiple small fractures, abrasion over U/L. iv. Contusion of5 x 4 cm. over left thigh mid lateral part. ClinicaIIy fracture of left femur of shaft. Swelling and tenderness was present. v. Haemetoma of 4 x 2 over occipita! region of scalp. !t has come on record that the appellant was advised to X-ray and on X-ray examination, it was found that the appellant sustained fracture of shaft left femur. The Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board has clearly mentioned that the appellant suffered 40% permanent disabiiity. !t has aiso been mentioned therein that the disability was assessed by Kesselers System. It has also come in evidence that the appellant, after metwith accident, remained admitted in R.M.P.Hospital, Kondagaon and thereafter was referred to Jagdalpur Hospitaf. 10. Definiteiy due to accident the appellant received muitipie injuries incfuding fracture of shaft !eft femur .bone as is evident from the documents annexed with the record; due to injuries he wouid have spent substantiai amountfor his treatment and would have suffered physical and menta! agony due to injuries and his hospitalization and that the ^isabjlity of the appellant was assessed by Kesselers System. !t is a matter of common knowledge that some amount has been substantiaEly spent on his treatment. 1 am of the opinion that the Tribunal certainly has fallen into error in awarding lower compensation. 11. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsei for the parties and aEE the relevant factors inciuding the above mentioned broad features ofthe case, ! am ofthe opinion that further award of Rs.15,000/- incSusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the cSompensation of Rs.2000/- awarded by the Tnbunai as just and proper corrjpensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12. The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed partly. The appellant/ciaimant is awarded further sum of Rs.15,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation, in addition to the sum of Rs.2,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Respondent No.3 - the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted 3 months' time for depositing the sum of Rs.15,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. R.L. Jbanwar Judge