HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. hflisc. Appeal (C) No. 1004 of 2010 Appellant Applicant Respondents Non-applicants Rajesh Prasad Gupta s/o Shri Lallan Prasad Gupta, aged about 34 years, r/o Durgesh Kirana Store, over Cannel, Camp-2, Bhilai, Tahsil and distt. Durg C.G. VERSUS Santosh Kumar Sharma, s/o S.P. Sharma, r/o G. Cabin Pole No.24, Charauda, tahsil Patan, distt. Durg C.G. (Driver and owner of Motorcycle NO.C.G.07LJ 1777) The Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhavan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandari, RaipurC.G. (Insurer of Motorcycle No.C.G.07 LJ 1777) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Shri S.S. Rajput and Ms. Renu Singh, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER ith (14ln0ctober,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ''^&^-'^" ^\^ 2 • M.A.C.No.1004 of 2010 n Appellant/ claimant Rajesh Prasad Gupta is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.07.2010, passed in Claim Case No.40/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.7,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Secfion 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.11.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Raj'esh Prasad Gupta sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident on 06.11.2007; the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself and the motorcyclist of the other motorcycle bearing registration NO.C.G.-07-LJ/1777; the claimant and the other motorcyclist contributed to the accident to the extent of 50% each; as the other motorcycle on the date of the accident was insured with the Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the insurance company was liable to pay 50% of the compensation assessed to the claimant. 4) 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 been spent on treatment, assessed the total compensation in the case at ft .:. M.A.C.No. 1004 of 2010 Rs.2,00,000/-. As the claimant himself was found responsible for the accident to the extent of 50%, the insurer of the other motorcycle was directed to pay Rs.1,00,000/- i.e. 50% of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of passing ofthe award. 5) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erredin holding that the claimant also contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%; in assessing the compensation taking the permanent disability at 25% though the doctor certified the claimant's permanent disability at 30%; in awarding interest on the amount of compensation from the date of the award and not from the date of the application. 6) Shri S.S. Rajput and Ms. Renu Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the other motorcycle, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has rightly held that the claimant himself also equally contributed to the accident; the compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- assessed by the Tribunal and Rs.1,00,000/- awarded to the claimant is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Claimant Rajesh Prasad Gupta was aged about 34 years on the date of the accident. The claimanL&Listaioad-n-a-^ M.A.C.No. 1004 of 2010 injuries including fractures in the motor accident is borne out from the evidence available on record. 8) True, the doctor certified the claimant's permanent disability at 30% vide disability certificate Ex.P/50 and the Tribunal has assessed the compensation in the present case on the basis of loss of future earning capacity to the extent of 25%. The above approach of the Tribunal, in our opinion, does not suffer from any illegality in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343 wherein the loss of future earning capacity was taken by the Apex Court at 20% whereas the doctor had ceri:ified the permanent disability to the extent of45%. 9) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that the claimant himself also equally contributed to the accident to the extent of 50% is concerned, we gather from the record that in the present case the accident oecurred involving two motorcycles; the police registered criminal cases against both the motorcyclists including the claimant; in the initial medical papers of the claimant it has categorically been mentioned that the claimant was driving the motorcycle after consuming the liquor. In the above factual scenario, we do not find any infirmity in the above finding recorded by the Triburfal holding that the claimant himself was also responsible for the accident to the extent of50%. 10) So far as the direction for payment of interest from the date of the award is concerned, we gather from the Tribunal's record s.nsi-Kuaseac.nnxl .A.C. No. 1004 of 2010 that the claimant's claim petition was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 17.04.2009 and it was restored to its original number vide order dated 22.10.2009 on the condition that the claimant shall be entitled to get interest only from the date of the award. In the above mentioned peculiar facts of the present case, we do not find any infirmity in the above direction of the Tribunal whereby the interest was made payable from the date of the award. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. ^ Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge subbu