"'.-£ '^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA^>UR SB: Hon'bteShri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.(ClNo.ei4of2089 LateluramSahu Versus Johanlal Nishad and otheR. ORDER For Pronouncement of Order ^ .06.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ..*lSf®1* HIGH COJRT OF CHHATTISGARH : BU.ASPUR SiNOLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.LJHANWAR. J. APPELLANT CLATMANT RESPONDENTS NON-CUUMANTS Misc. Appeal (Ct Ito. 614 of200Q Latelu Ram Sahu, S/o Itwari Sahu, s®ed about 50 years, Occupatfon-Nothing, R/o - Wllage-Garhsivni, Police Stafion - Tumgaon, Tahsil and Dlstrict Mahasamund (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Johan Lal Nishad, S/o ttwari Ram Nishad, aged about 25 yeare, Occupation - Tractor Oriver, R/o Village Garhshmi, Police Station - Tumgaon, Tahsil and District - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Driver of vehicte Tractor bearing regi^ration No.CG-D/8461) 2. Purushottam Lal Sonkar, S/o Kaliram Sontar, aged about 40 yeara, R/o - Village Garhshml, Police StaUon - Tumgaon, Tahsil and Di^rict - Mahasamund (C.G.) (Owner of vehicte Tractor bearing registration No.CG-D®461) 3. The New India Insuranc® Gompany Limited, through Dhnsional Manager, Dhnsional Offtee, Madewia Building, Kutehery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur (C.Gt.) (Insurer of vehide Tractor beaing registration No.CG-D/9461) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SEGTK3N 173 OF THE MOTCTt VEHICLESACT Appearance: Shri Dharmssh Shrivastava, counselforthe appellant. None for respondent No.1 & 2. Shri Sudhir Agravrat, counsel for rwpondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon 9 \ .06.2011) I This is daimanFs appeal seeldng enhancement of compensaUon awarded by ttie Principal Motor Acclctents Claims Tribunal. Mahasamund, '"-'*, .- ,-i-< -^ ^Ari^ift Y 'uii8^ ;• r^. i'?sssv'i •:'• \ ^ -"'? (for short 'Claims Tribunal") in claim case No. 1600007 vteto onter dated 01.08.2008. 2. As against the GompensaUon <rf Rs.6,00,000/- claimed by tha appetlarrt/claimant by filing claim p^tton under Sedion 166 of tha Motor Vehicles Act for the Injuries sudained by him tn the ffiotDT snddent on 26.05.2007, the Tribunal, on close scruUny of the evldence, material ptaued and respecUve submisstons of the parties, held that due to rash and negligent driving of driver of tractor No. C.G. 04 D-9461 (for short "the offending vehlcle"), the appallant had suslained injuries and as ttie effending vehicte was insured with respondent No.3,the insurance company is also responsible to pay compensaUon and awarded a total sum of Rs.45,000/- as compensatton atong wtth interest at 6% perannum from the date of fillng of claim petiCon till the actual payment 3. Leamed counsel fbr the appellants / clalmants submittod that the leamed Clalms Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensatton of Rs.45,000/- onty; the leamed Tribunal has also erred In conslderfng the disability certificate to the extent of 67.6%, despitethe fentthatthe Mmewas issued by the Medical Board and proved by the Dr. S.P.Nfere A.W.2. On these premises, he urged that compensaBon awarctod by fte Tribunal may be enhanced. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing fw respwident No.3 argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal Is just and proper compensation, and therefore, need not be interferred with. 5. I have heard tearned counsel appearing for the paities and have perused tte impugned award including record. 6. Appellant - Latulu, in his evidence, has deposed that when he was coming on his bicycle from vills^e Garhslvni to village Pwdhi afterselllng vegetables, he was dashed bythe offendlng vehlcte belng drtvan by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, as a result of which, he received injures on his waist and right leg. 7. In a motor accident claim case, what Is Important te that the compensation to be awarded by the Courtsn'ribunals shoutd be ju^ and proper compensatlon in the tads and ctrcumstances of fte case. It should neither be a meager amount ofjcomDensation nor a bonanza. 1 shall now •t'^ 'y examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.45,000/- awanled by the Tribunal is just and fair compensaUon in the facts and cireumstancesofthe present case. 8. Claimant Lateluram was aged 50 years on ttie date oS accidant. He was a vegetabte vendor by occupatlon. The clalmant su^alned serious injuries includlng ftacture of hls right leg, as is evldent from Ex.P.IS issued by the Dlstrict Medical Board and proved by &•. S.P.Vare A.W.2 showtng his permanent disability to the extent of 67.6%. It is a matter af common knowledge that substantial amount is required to bs spent on ttie trertnent of fracture. The claimant, being a vegetable vendor, on account of fte fracture of his right leg could not have performed hte dufias as vegetabla vendor for a period of 2 months, resutUng into monetary loss to hlm. The Tribunal apparenUy has fedten into error in not awanling any sum towards loss of income during the perlod <rf treatmant, coiww/ance. attendant charges and spectaldiet. 9. The compensatlon of Rs.45,OOCy- awarded by tfie Tribunal when examined in the contextofthe above mentioned broad faatures of tha <as®, in my opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 10. Considering all the relevant aspects rfthe matter, l •m of the (yinion that furtter award of Rs.60,000/- Indush/e <rf Irtferest compoiwnt en ttie enhanced amount of compensatlon would make the compenaation of Rs.45,000/- awarded by tha Tribunat as just and proper compensation in U» faets and cireumstances of the present case. 11. The appeat flled by the appellant / claimant for enharwement of the compensatton, therefora, is atlowed In part. The ctaimant Is awanled further sum of Rs.60,000/- indusive of intere^ component on the enhanced amount of compensation in additfon to the sum of Rs.45,OOW- awareled by the Tribunal. 12. Respondent No.3 - The New India tnsurance Gompany Limitad » granted ttiree months time for depositing the total sum <rf Rs.60,00(V- before the conceming Claims Tribunal. No order as to c<»ts. — R.L. Jhanwar Judge