^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 800 of 2009 Appellant Claimant Respondents Opposite Party Balveer Kaur, aged about 28 years, d/o Nirvel Singh, occupation Teacher, r/o. Qr. No. Model Town, Police Station Supela, Tahsil and District Durg C.G. VERSUS Elberd Patric, aged 38 years, s/o. Anthoni Patric, resident of 17/11, Nehru Nagar (East) Bhilai, police station Supela, tahsil and district Durg C.G. Joseph Patric, Elberd Patric, s/o Anthoni Patric, resident of 17/11, Nehru Nagar, (East) Bhilai, Police Station Supela, tahsil and district Durg C.G. Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Ltd. Power House, Bhilai Tahsil and district Durg C.G. . IVIemo of aRpeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Ms. Maya Verma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vipin Tiwari, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Smt. Chitra Shrivastava, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (09mSeptember,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gugta, C.J. MACNo. 800 of 2009 Appellant/ claimant Balveer Kaur is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 11 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.08.2008, passed in Claim Case No.114/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,30,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 15.10.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.46,939/- as compensation along with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Maruti Van bearing registration No.C.G.-07/ZD/0685, liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Maruti Van has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have spent on treatment, awarded Rs.38,880/- towards loss in t'he future earning capacity on account ofthe permanent disability; and Rs.15,059/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal, thus, assessed the total compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.53,939/-. After adjusting the amount of Rs.7,000/- which the claimant received (1 )E4) 86pa|MOU>| UOLULUOO p J3UBLU B Sj )| •pJ038J UO e|qB|ieAB eouspiAa eqi LUOJJ }no eujoq si tuspiooe JO}OLU aqi ui ssuoq e|nqy pue eiqji }46u jeq jo ssjnioeji psuieisns lueuiieio siji 'Bjna io piflsip 94} ui 100403 4issd ueAg se UMOU>| |ooqos s}BAud B Ul J9L|3B9} |OOL|3S SB BUI>|JOM SBM 9L|S 'tUeplOOB 84} p 9)ep 84) uo sjeaA 93 inoqe peBe SGM jnex je9A|Bg IUBIUIEIO (6 •pjBMe 94} p3)joddns OS|B 'UBA !in-ie|/\| 9|3iL|9A 6uipuayo 8L|) i0 J9AUp pUB JSUMO 3^} 'OUlBd ^dSSOr Z'ON PUG OUtBd P-19(fl3 |.'ON s}U9puodsej joj |9sunoo peujeai 'UBMII uidiA WS (9 •eseo }uasejd sqi ^o ssoueisuinojio pue S}OG^ s\# ui uoiiesuadiuoo jedojd pue tsnf si |eunqui eL|) Aq pepJBMB -/6£6'9fr'syp uoiiesuadiuoo 94} leq} pepu9)uoo pue PJBMB eq} psijoddns 'pueq J9q}o 3if\ uo 'UGA !)nJB|/y epiLiOA Buipusyo 041 p jejnsui eqi 'peiiain AuedLUOQ eouejnsui eipu| pa^un aL|i '£-ON }uepuodsaj jo^ lesunoo peujeei 'BAEiSBAuqs ejt!^0 'tLUS (Z •tueujiep eqi o»A|UO -/6£6'9fr'syjo uoitesuedLUoa MO| 6u!pjBMB ui pue 4uEpua))e pue :90ueAaAuoo ^eip IBioads :6uu9yns pue uied 'SAeei p sso| /siuooui ^o sso| SPJBMO} ains Aue CuipjeMe ^ou ui pejje seq jeunqui 9q} )B4i pauiiuqns }ue||odde 94} jo^ issunoo paujeai 'eujjsA eAe|/y •S|/\| (g •lueaiAed |en}oe ^o Q\ep eq} ||i) uoiuisd LUIB|O 9L|} p 6u!|ij ^O 81Ep 84} LUOJ^ LUnUUE jed %Q @ -/6£6'9t''syP UO!)BSU9dLU03 jo }unoiue eAoqe eq} uo tsajeiui to tusLuAed papejip jeyijnj leunqui eqi •lueLuiejo eqi 01 -/6C6'9fr'sy P }unoLue aoueieq eq} Aed 0} pepajip SBM UBA !inje|/\| eiojqaA Buipueyo 3L|i ^o jejnsui 94} 'UBA !}nJB|/\| sioiqoA euipuayo 94) jo jeuMO 9410104 jeiijee 6002^0 009'ONOVIftl £ MACNo. 800 of 2009 substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. As the movement of the claimant on account of the fractures of her right tibia and fibula bones was restricted, she could not have performed her duties as teacher for a period of 2-3 months, resulting in either monitory loss or loss of leave to the claimant. 10) The Tribunal certainly has erred in not awarding any sum towards loss of income/ loss of leave during the period of treatment; pain and suffering; special diet; conveyance and attendant. 11) The compensation of Rs.53.939/- assessed by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 12) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.21,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.53,939/- assessed by the Ttibunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.21,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.53,939/- / Rs.46,939/- assessed/ awarded by the Tribunal. ^r^. MACNo. 800 of 2009 14) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.21,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 15) No order as to costs. ) Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge subbu