IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'bie Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, .A. No. 43 of 2002 Pronouncement of Order Mannu Dhesmar Versus Vishnu Kshatriya and others. ]3 .04.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge •***• Liit Ciaimant Respondents Non-applicants HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Enale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Rajeshwar 1-a! Jhanwar, J, IVi.A. N0,43/2002 Mannu Dheemar, aged 20 years, S/o Late Raghu Dheemar, Occupation - Cooiie, R/o Dheemarpara, village and post Raipura, Tah. And Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus Vsshnu Kshatriya, aged 45 years, S/o Bahadur Sshatriya, Occupatjon - Truck Driver, R/o Raipur Calcutta Roadlines, Rin< Road No.2, Tatibandh, .Raipur, Distt. Raipur. 2-A Sukumar Manna, Occupation Truck Driver. R/o Raiour Caicutta Roadlines, Rins Road No.2, Tatibandh, Raipur, Distt. Raipur. 2-B Bhaktipad Mati, Occupation - Truck Driver, R/o Raipur Calcutia Rosdiines, Ring Road No.2, Tatibandh, Raipur, Distt. Raipur. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., D.0. 3. 03,16, Hari Street, 3'° Fioor, CaScutta, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Thr. Office, Jail Road, Kutehery Chowk, Raipur, Poiicy No. 61117, Vaiidity from 29.9.S8 to 28.9.99. Appeai underSection 173 ofthe Motcr Vehicles Act, 1S88 Fresent: Shri Sourabh Sharma v/ith Shri A. L. Singraul for the appel'ant. Shri Sanjay Gupta for respondent No.3. None for other respondents. (Passedon n.04.2011) Appeilant - ?»!annu Dheemar !s seeking enhance.ment of compensation of Rs.40,550/- swarded by the 2"° Additionai iVlotor Accidents Ciaims Tribuna!, Raipur ar (for short 'the Ciaims Tribunal') vide award dated 10.09.2001 passed in Ciaim Case No.100/1999. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.7,50,000/- c!aimed by the appellant/claimant by fiiing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vshictes Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on S.W ^"1 '''-'i-'^ii 21.5.99, the Tribunsl av/arded a total sum of Rs.40,550/- as compensation to the c.'aimant along with interest at 8% per annum from the dste o" fjlin< of ciaim petition til! the date of actua! payment. 3. The Tribunal on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence !ed before it held that the ciaimant Mannu Dheemar sustained injuries In ths motor accident on 21.5.99; the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of drivsr of Truck bearlnc No. WB 03 A 5546 (for short "She offending vehicie"); as the orfending. vehide was, on the date of accident, insured with the United Sn'dEa Insurance Compsny Limited, the insursnce compsny v.'as liable to pay compensation to She claimant. 4. As the respondents have not filed eny appea! against the above impugned order, the findings recorded by the Tribuna! have now attained finality. 5. The Tribuna! considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the ciaimar.t i" the motor accidsnt and the amount proved to have been spent on his treatment, awarded Rs.4,549/- tov/ards amount incurred in treatment. In order to work out the tota! !oss of income, the Tribuna! held that ths appeiiant is working as Coolie and taking into consideration the fact of avaliabiiity of his regular and indefinite work and a!so his disability arising out of accident, assessed the income of the ciaimant at Rs.300/- and Rs.3600/- per annum. Ths Tribunal eonsidering the age of the appeliant, avaEJsbiSsty and indeflnits regular work, spplied muitipiier of 10 and worked out Rs.36,000/- to'A'ards loss of Income. in this manner, the TFibunal worked out totsl compensation as Rs.40,549/-, if rounded of comes to Rs.40,550./- Vrhich the cinimant is enfitied to receive for the injuries sustained by hlm. The Tribunai fastened the iiability to pay compensation on respondents jointly and sevsraiiy. 6. Learned counsel for the appel'ants argued that learned Tribuns! has erred in not considerina the medica! certiflcate y»'hereir, 35 percentags of permanent disability has been meRtioned; the iearnad T'ibuna! has erred in assessing tota! loss of income snd sincs permanent disabiiit/ has been proved by Vinod Kumar Pandey, the compensation av/ardsd by the may be enhanced. -• ^ :":;';1^. %?% On the other hand, learned counsel for the insurance company argued in support of the impugned order. 8. Claimant Mannu Dheemar was aged about 20 years on the dats of the accident. He used to earn his livelihood working as Coolie and the work of Cooiie is ina'efinite. No doubt, She appeiianfc'cSsimant received Snjuries in the motor accic'ent which is not disputed by the respondents. A perusal of Ex.P.1 shows that he suffered 35% psrmanent disabiiity. Ex.P.2 to Ex.P.21 are the documents by virtue of which if is ctear that he must have spert money substantiaily on his treatment. Ex.P.22 is X-ray report which clesriy reveated that there is fracfure of shaft of radius and uina. Considering the injuries induding fracture sustained.by the appeiiant in the motor accident, his hospitalzafion where the appeliant and must have spent substantial amount and aiso suffered physically and msntaily, ! am of the viev/ that the Tribunal committed error in not awardina amount under the hsads pain and suffering and speeiai diet during the course of treatment. 9. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counssi for the parties and al! the reievant factors including the above mentioned broad feaSures of the case, I am of consideration thaf furthsr award of Rs.11,000/- under the heads pain and suffering and specia! diet would make the compensation of Rs.40,550/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and cireumstancss of the case. 10. The appeal filed by the appeilant'ciaimant for snhancement of the compensation is, therefore, allowed in part. The appeiianVclaimant is av/arded further sum of Rs.11,000/- under the heads pain and sufferim and special diet, in addition to sum of Rs.40,550/- awarded by the Tribunsi. 11, Respondent No.3 / insurance company is granted t\vo months'time for depositing the sum of Rs.11.000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. No order as to costs. • „., R.L. Jhanwar Judge