HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M.A.fClNo.519of2008 NON-APPLICANTS APPELLANTS State of Chhattisgarh and another Versus APPLICANT/RESPONDENT : Yadan Singh Thakur ORDER For Pronouncement ofOrder .03.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.LJHANWAR. J. Misc. Appeal (0 No.519 of 2008 NON-APPLICANTS/ APPELLANfS APPLtCANT/ RESPOilDENT (1) State of Chhattisgarh through Collector, Raigarh (C.G.) (2) Aliazer Toppo, S/o Makosh Toppo, R/o Village Hathgada, Police Station, Kansabel, Tah. Bagicha, Distt. Jashpurnagar (C.G.) VERSUS Yadan Singh Thakur, S/o Mohan Singh, aged about 29 years, R/o Village Kotara road, Near Raiiway Station, Raigarh, Tah. & Distt. Raigath (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1998 Appearance: Shri R. R. Sinha, Panel Lawyerfor the State/appellants. Shri Roshan Dubey appears on behalf ofShri G.K.Beriwal forthe respondent. ORDER (Passedon ] .03.2011) This is a State appeal directing against the impugned order dated 27.10.2007 passed by 4th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Raigarh in clajm case No. 8/2007 awarding Rs.1,77,484/- as total compensation to the respondent/claimant in an injury case. 2. Brief facts, according to the pleadings of the claimant/respondent, are that on fateful day of 4.8.2001 at about 10.30 p.m. the respondenVclaimant was coming on Scooter bearing No. M.P. 26 KA/5183 being driven by one Pappu and when they reached to Kotara Road near Railway Track, one TATA Sumo bearing No.M.P.26 02/4622 (for short 'offending vehicie') being driven by its driver in a rash and negjigent manner, and owned by the appellanVState, hit the Scooter from front side, as a result of which, the claimant sustained serious injuries. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.31,70,000/- claimed by the respondent / daimant by filing claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor ^•'^s^ @ accident on 4.8.2001, the Tribunal, on close scrutiny of the evidence, material placed and submission made by respective parties, held the driver i.e. appellant No.2 iiable for causing accident by driving the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and awarded Rs.1,77,4841- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till realization of amount. The Tribunal further directed the appellants to pay the compensation amount jointly and severally. Aggrieved therewith, the State has preferred this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants/State argued that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order awarding excessive compensation of Rs.1,77.484/- without there being considered the rash and negligent act of appellant No.2; in the absence of distinction between physical disability and loss of earning; and has also erred in accepting 50% permanent disability. 5. On the other hand, learned counsei appearing for the respondent argued in support of the impugned order. 6. I have heard the arguments advanced on behalf of parties and perused the impugned order including the record ofthe Tribunal. 7. Admittedly, the claimant sustained injuries in the motor accident occurred on 4.8.2001 as is evident from pleadings and evidence adduced on behalf of the respondent. It is also clear from the record that the appeilanVState has merely filed its written statement before the Claims Tribunal and denied the entire pleadings while admitting the fact that the offending vehic!e was under its control and that appellant No.2 is its driver. Adequate evidence on behalf of respondent/claimant was adduced. RespondenVclaimant A.W.1 has, in his evidence, stated that on the date of accident, the offending vehicle being driven by its driver / appellant No.2 hit his right leg, as a result of which, the scooter was thrown out and they iost controi over the scooter in which they were coming. As a result of accident, he sustained injuries inclucling fracture of right Tibia and for that treatment was going on in K.G.Hospital, Raigarh for a period of one and half year. He has further deposed that thereafter he was referred to Dr.Bhimrao Ambedkar Memorial Hospital Raipur where a rod was inserted and right Fibuia was shortened by two inch, due to accident. In this regard, Ex.P.10, which is a discharge certificate, has clearly revealed that right Fibula was shortened. A.W.2 Jog Sai and A.W.3 Mohan Singh Thakur, father of the respondenVclaimant, supported the evidence of €. respondent / claimant to the extent of accident and as a result of such accident, the claimant sustained injuries. Dr. P.K.Patel A.W.4 has, in his evidence, deposed that he examined the respondent/claimant and on examination, he found fracture on his right leg and that injury has become infection for that joint of bone could not be done. He found 50% disability on claimant's right leg. Disability certificate is Ex.P.11. 8. As against the evidence adduced on behalf of respondent/claimant, the appellant / State cross-examined the appetlant and his witnesses and took defence that due to rash and negligent driving of scooter driver, accident had occurred and not on the fault of driver of offending vehicle. Although the respondent / claimant and his witness Jog Sai have not been able to tell the number of damaged scooter, but it has come in their evidence that accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehide. It is clear from the evidence of Aliazer Toppo N.A.W.2 that he was driving the offending vehicle but has not been able to rebut the evidence of respondent and his witnesses that on the date of accident he was driving the vehicle in a rash and reckless manner and thereby caused accident. He admitted that due to his rash and negligent driving of offending vehicle an offence was registered against him for the same accident. Not only his evidence, Ex.P.1, Final report Ex.P.2 including Ex.P.4 to Ex.P.8 also clearly revealed that the said offending vehicle was being driven by him in a rash and negligent manner. 9. Having thus considered the above evidence adduced on behalf of appellant and documents, it can safely inferred that on the date of accident i.e. 4.8.2001, appeilant No.2 drove the offending vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby caused the accident. which piece of evidence has also not been rebutted by appellant No.2. Except the evidence of Aliazer Toppo, no witness on behalf of the State did enter the witness box to rebut the evidence of respondent and his witnesses. Therefore, the leamed Tribunal has rightly held liable the appellant No.2 for cause of acddent. The finding recorded thereof by the Tribunal cannot be found fault. 10. As regards argument as to award of excessive compensation by th'e Tribunal. aithough there was no clinching evidence as to exact income of the respondent/claimant, the Tribunal was justified in fixing sum of Rs.2000/- as monthly income of the respondent. Thereafter, taking into account the fact that appellant suffered 50% permanent disability, the ^. ^.-.^'^^- •''^ -^\) Tribunal thought it frt to deduct one-half therefrom and accordingly fixed his annual income at Rs.12000/-; considering the age of respondent applied multiplier of 18 on the amount of Rs.12000/- and accordingly worked out dependency to the tune of Rs.2,16,000/-. After considering the evidence of Dr. P.K.Patel, Ex.P.11 showing disability to the extent of 50% and the drcumstances in which the said disability certificate was issued and also the fact that'disability suffered by the respondent is curable, the Tribunai awarded a sum of Rs.1,50.000/- towards permanent disability; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.7,484/- towards expenses incurred in treatment; Rs.5,000/- towards special diet and Rs.5000/- towards expenses incurred on attendant during treatment. In this manner, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,77,484/- as total compensation and further awarded interest at 7.5% per annum on the total compensation. 11. Having regard to the fact that neither any separate appeal nor even cross-appeal for enhancement of compensation was filed and having regard to argument of the learned counsel for respondent that he fully supported impugned order, 1 am of the opinion that the Tribunal was wholly justified in awarding compensation of Rs.1,77.484/- which is just and reasonable compensation and not even bonanza. 12. For the foregoing reasons, 1 am fully satisfied that the learned Tribunal has rightly dealt with every aspect after relying on the clinching and reliable evidence adduced on behalf of parties. 1 do not find any iilegality in the impugned order and thus 1 am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \