^v^ n ir i ATOm.LANT MANo. Uo^ ca-'aoos fiivision Bendi Kalash Hhari Khane, Sfo REBnBsiiankar Khace, Egeddbout 52 yeara, Byeaste KiyEsflu^ R/o P.HE Odcny, Kosaladi, KoriM, Eist - KcBba(C.G.). VERSL3S (! RESPONDB<rE3 3NOJUMAINTS ..'• »" ^y^y .'>^^-" ?;<^ I. Sanat I&nnarAwasdri, S/o Late RBnfldnlawBnAwasda,a8edA<xit 26 yeacs. Bycaste Q'airfan, R/o Ran-pur KfHfaa, Dst - Kmba <C.G.) Santosh KunaarKhare,, Sfo SlQffiBnadiacan.Khare, agedeix)ut 46yeat5»QrcasteK^asttB, Rft> R^atdraNB®ETKraba, Dist Korta(CG.) 3: ti<aial Insuranioe Qimpaay Uitt, -^ Q-andiQffioeKosdbadiRMhi Dis^-Kcaba(C.a). AFPEAL UNDERSEGTIONfS QFMOTORVEHICLE ACT !-r 'i— lil!:;III. 1-tfcHfl r! HIGHCQURT^FCHHATTtSGAWlATBIiASPUR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS Kailash BihartKhare Versus Sanat Kumar Awasthi and ottiere. MISCELLANEOUS APPEM. UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR "VEHICLEACT. 1988 (SB: Hon'bte Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Mr. SunU Sahu, counsel for the appellart. Mr. Shree Kumar ^rawal, Sr. Advocate with Shri Anand Kumar Gupta, counsel for respondent No. 3/lnsunance Company. ORDER (15.07.2011) 1. This is claimant's appeal seddng enhaneement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Additlonal Motor Aecident Glaims Tribunal, Korba (for short the Tribunal) passed in Claim Case No. 56/2000 videits order dated 31.3.2303. 2. As against the compensatton of Rs.80,25,000/-ctaimed t^ the appellant/ctaimant by filing application under Sectton 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on account of injules sustalned by him in the accident dated 12.6.1998 by Tempo Trax bearing regtetration No. MP 26 E-4576, tearned Tribunal has awarded c(mpensatu3n @S Rs.1,30,300!- along with interest @ 9 % per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. Learned Tribunal, on a ctose scrirtiny of the entire evidenw led before it held that tlie accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of Tempo Trax No. MP 26 E -<K76; the respondent No.S/lnsurance Company is liable for payment of compensatton; and awarded aforesaid amourt of compensation to the appellant/claimant, who a is govt. employee against the responctents. •-..-•ll) 4. Shri Sunil Sahu, tearned counset appearirg for the appellanVclaimant would submit: the leamed Tribureit has not awarded any sum on sccount of loss of ieave and, thus the learnal Tribunal has fallen In error in awarding low amount of compensatton. 5. On the other hand, Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, tearned Senior Advocate appearing for the respwdent No. 3/lnsurance Company supported the award and submttted that In the tects & cirrajmstances of the case, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. 6. I have heard leamed eounset for the parties and peru^d the material available on record including impugned award. 7. tndisputabty, the appellant/claitront is working in the govt. department and even after accident his promotion is not effected, and therefore, there is no loss of income suffered by tha appetiant/ctaimant on account of injuries sustained by him in the said aceident. Leamed Tribunal has awarded Rs.65,390/- on account of pr^ent and future medical expenses; Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.25,000/- for mental agony; and Rs.20,000/- for special di^. However, the learned Tribunal has erred in nd: sBwapdir^ any sum towards loss of leave, inaanuch as, appellant has undergone operation twice and also suffered fracture In Ns teg, therefore, he must have out of job at least for a period of 5 to 6 months, resulting into loss of leave. 8. Considering the every aspects of the matter and oonsidering ttie Tact that the appellant/claimant is also ertitled tor aime amount towards loss of teave, tn the considered opinlon of thte Court, further award of Rs.50,000/- inclush/e of interest component on ttie enhamsaJ amount of compensation would make the amount of compensation as just and reasonable compensation !n the facts and clrcumstancre of the present case. 9. For the reasons mentloned hereinabove, appeal te aNowed in part. The appellarrt/claimant is awarded further sum of F^.50,000/- inclusive of interest comDonent in acklKion to the amount awardiHl by HtiMK W .i'1 ;'i:..^'i!' ';.i ;8lfii-i!l ^^^Ail.fl^fc^.-^ the Tribunal. Award is modified to the abo\re extent. conditions mentioned in the award shall rematn intact. of the 10. The respondent No. 3/lnsurance Company is granted three months time to deposit enhanced amount of ompensation before the concerned Clalms Tribunal. Sd/- 11. No order asto costs. ^K.AgarwaI Judge