?y (t1^ kJl r>u a MFtO n.u'A o-s >ellanl •IJ'aSs^k;-s^i& liUicai ii aias* Godawari, S/o. Ramnat'n aged about- 20 years, caste - Bhatara, R/o. Erikpa!, post Maigoon, Pollce Station - !^_L—ti"r^l—^S5.^^.4—>-/^/~'' \ lagasipur, uisti. tsasiar ^ij.u.) Non-aDsSioants P.flisce!!i Gurudev Singh, son of Late Charan Singh, R/'o Gandhi Nagar Ward, .jagdatpur (CG) (Vehicie Owner Truck r-.rs 17 7i"/n^'>7'i .\^\y l l ^L^/UUOf 2 Sanju K^jmar Sonwanl, son of Shlv i'MaiaViail OUIiWaIii, resident of Gangamunda, PS Bodhghat, Jagdaipur, Distt Bastar (CG} (Driver of the Truck') United tndia Insurance Company, through : Branch Manager, Branch Jagdaipur, Distt Bastar (CG) (insurer of the Truck) £^^^.i/£^^,rft" Ej ^W^ ^%;l 'resent :' Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsel forthe appeliant. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Abhishek Sinha and-Shri GS Patel, counsel resDondent No.3. ^!6 ^ 'V!'s H Bl tt^ e foliowing order of the Court was passed by This is claimant's appeai for enhancement of t'ne compensation awai the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.07.2004, passed in CSaim Case No.14/2003.- 2) As aaainst the compensation of Rs.9,19,000/'-, claimed by the appeiiant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.08.2002, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation aiong -with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the filing of the ciaim petition tiil the date of actuai payment. 3) The Tribunal on a ciose scrutinv of the entire evidence led before it he!d that ciaimant Godawari sustained multiple injuries in the motor accident on 26.08.2002: the accident occurred due to rash and negiigent driving of the drlver of the offendlng vehicls Truck bearing registration No.CG-17/ZC/0537; as the above offendina vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with ..thi6 United India Insurance Company Limited, and the Insurance Companv coirid not establssh anv breach of the policy conditions, the insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the cialmant. ;!Es«"@Biinat 3 K 4) As the respondents have not r'iied any appeai against the awara', the above flndinas recorded bv t.he Tribunai have novi/ attained finaiitv. 5) The Tribunai considering the ' number and nature of the injuries proved to have been susiained by the clalmant in the motor sccident; and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.50,000/- tovi/ardsloss of efficiency and future earnin; capacity; Rs.15.000/- towards medical expenses; and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a totai sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustalned by him in the motor accldent. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.75.000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of the filln.Q of the ciajm petition till the date of actuai payment. 3) Shri Subhash Yadav, learned counsei for the appeliant vehementiy ar.qued that fhe Tribunal has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.75,000/- oniy, though the a.DpelianVciaimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanentdisabilityto the extent of55%. 7) Shri ^bhishek Sinha and Shri GS Patel, learned counsel for / • - respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the avi/ard and contended that the compensatlon of Rs.75,000./- av/arded "oy the Tribuna! is just and )roper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present i..^:^iT. -^^.i^^^l^^P^S^^ ^ ^ :Ci^vSSSS^SS r. y; Ciaimant'Godav/ari vrfas aged about 20 years.on t-he date of the accident. He was earning his liveiihood by running a cycie repairina shop. The evidence of AVV/2 Dr LL Thakur establishes that ciaimant Godawari sustained multiple fractures of his right tea In the motor accident. It is a matter of common knowledge that substantiai amounf is required to be spent on treatment of the fractures. It is apparent t'nat on account of these fractures, claimant Godawari could not have attended his cvcle repairing shop for 'oeriod of 4-6 months resuttina in monitorv ioss to him. The . ciaimant must have suffered physical psin and mental agony on account of the injuries and fractures sustained by him in the motor accident for sufficientiy long period. 9) The compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! 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 en'nanced suitablv. 10} Considering all the relevant aspects ofthe matter, we are of the opinion that further avi.'ard of Rs.25,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation wouid make the compensation of Rs.75,000.'- avvarded by the Tribunai as just and proper compensatiorrin the facts and circumstances of th( presen.t case. 11) T'ne appeal fiied by the appeiianVciaimant for enhancement •; of t'ne compensation, therefore, is aiiowed In part. The claimant is avvarded furt'ner sum of Rs.25,000/- incluslve of interest comDonent :'SSSk.'ss&SsS^^S, 'J/ .^',.^ L..,te. on the enhanced amount of compensation, in additlon to the -sum of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 12) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.25.000/- before the concernina Ciaims Tribunai. 1 •der V[^— Sd/- ChiefJustice subbu Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge 'li'. 'WSiS^