-=,..,..,<^.;i.w^^ BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.) DNsionBm^ M.A.NO. IM^'7 /2005 APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS \M^^- /:$F;y ^•y.. ^••" Fekan Bai, aged about 50 years,w/o Shri Manrakhan Dewangan, resident of village Bhaismudi, Tahsil Kurud, Distt Dhamtari (CG) VERSUS 1.^ Lalchand Chandrakar, son of Shri Raghunandan Chandrakar, resident of village Bhainsmundi, P,S- Magarlod, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Arjun Das Sundrani, son of Shri Saadarmal Sundarani, resident of Ganjroad, Nayapara, Rajim, Distt. Raipur (CG) 3^ The Oriental Insurance Co. Limited, Near, Aadarsh Baal Vidya Mandir, Dhaintari, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) ^ $ s MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 I. Original claim made II. Award made 11V Claim enhancement Rs.5,10,000/ Rs. 2T,000/- Rs. 3,^0,000/- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT M.A. No. 1459/2005 Fekan Bai Versus RESPONDENTS Lalchand Chandrakar and others SB:- Hon. Shri N.K. Aganval, J PRBSENT Shri U.R. Koshley, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, Adv. for the respondent No. 3. None for respondent No. 1 and 2. ORAL ORDER (23-8-2010) This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation in award dated 23rd July, 2005 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in Claim Case No. 149/2004 whrereby and whereunder, an amount of Rs. 27,000/- has been awarded to the claimant for the injuries sustained by her in the accident dated 3-9-2003. Facts of the case in brief are as under:- On 3-9-2003, the appellant along with other passengers were travelling in mini bus bearing registration No. CG 04 Z 0769. Near Bharda Mod, the said bus turned turtle due to rash and negligent driving of the driver as a result of which the appellant sustained multiple injuries including fracture ^<<"% l^-,^^^s^^ '§ ^r-^' ^..-, in her right hand wrist. The appellant by filing application under Section 166 read with Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') claimed Rs. 5,20,000/- as compensation against the respondents for the injuries sustained by her in the said accident. Learned Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the submissions made, evidence led and material placed, held the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver; the appellant sustained permanent disability to the extent of 30%, awarded Rs. 27,000/- as compensation holding respondents jointly and severely responsible for its payment. Shri U.R. Koshley, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant was labourer, due to permanent disability in the right hand, now she is unable to work and earn. Learned Tribunal has erred in not awarding any amount of compensation on account of loss of income. On the other han.d, Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/Insurance Company would contend that in the facts and circumstances of the case, learned Tribunal has rightly awarded Rs. 27,000/- as compensation which is just and reasonable and the same deserv^es to be upheld. Appellant Fekan Bai has examined herself as A.W. 1. In her statement, she has stated that after sustaining fracture in the wrist, now she is unable to work as a vegetable vender. Earlier she used to earn Rs. 100/- per day but now she could not earn a single penny. Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey (A.W. 2) has deposed in para 1 of his statement that the appellant was admitted in the hospital from 4-9-2003 upto 6-9-2003 as an indoor patient. There is fracture in the right hand wrist. There is malunited fracture of the bone and the appellant became permanently r ^•>ii-^ ».. ^ \ .^ ^ff^f^^ y disabled to the extent of 30%. In his cross-examination, he has deposed, the type of fracture sustained by the appellant is not curable. Nothing has been brought in the cross- examination to suggest either the appellant/claimant was negligent or the disability suffered by the appellant was due to negligence of the doctor. In view of the above, it cannot be said that the appellant did not sustain 30% disability in the said accident. However, learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 27,000/- holding that the appellant has not placed any material on record to show her loss of income which, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not sustainable in law and the amount awarded is on lower side. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal needs re- coraputation. 8. The appellant has deposed in para 3 of her statement that she used to earn Rs. 100/- per day. Even as per the view taken by this court in various cases, the notional income prescribed in Second Schedule appended to Section 163-A of the Act, which is Rs. 15,000/- per annum, has to be taken as Rs. 30,000/- in the cases in which accident has occurred in fhe year 2004. As the claimant had sustained 30% permanent disability, the yearly loss of income would be 30% of Rs. 30,000/- i.e. Rs. 9000/- per annum. Shri Koshley correctly submits that looking to the age of the appellant between 50 - 55 years at the time of accident, the multiplier should be of 11. By multiplying the yearly loss of income of Rs. 9000/- with multiplier of 11, the amount of compensation towards loss of income would be Rs. 99,000/-. By adding in it Rs. 5,000/- for pains and sufferings, Rs. 1000/- for medical expenses, the amount of compensation would be worked out to Rs. 1,05,000/- in place ofRs. 27,000/- as awarded by the Tribunal. 9. In view of above, the appeal is allowed in part. The appellant is entitled to Rs. 1,05,000/- in place of Rs. 27,000/- as ^ :/ ':\ - ^-^^'^ <*• awarded by the Tribunal i.e. Rs. 78,000/- over and above the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The above amount Rs. 78,000/- shall carry interest @ 6% per annum from the date of application till its payment. 10. The Insurance Company is directed to pay the above amount within a period of 3 months. Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge