HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH COfWM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRi RANGNATH CHANDRAKARJ. Misc.Aooeal No.08of2004 Suresh Nishad, S/o Lok Nath Nisahad, aged about 28 yrs., R/o. Village Dhaneli, Post - Siltara, P.S. Dhareiva, Tahsii & Dist. Raipur (C.G.) Versus Malkit Singh S/o Gurdayal Singh aged 55 yrs, R/o Walia Transport, Tatibandh, P.S. Amanaka, Tah & Distt. Raipur, c. Respondents 1. Non-ADpIicants .G. 2. Shamsher Singh S/o Gurdayal Singh, R/o Waiia Transport, Tatibandh, P.3. Amanaka, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) 3. The United Insurance Co. Ud. through Divisional Manager, Divisional OfRce, Kutchhery Chowk, Jail Road, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Memorandum of apoeal under Section 173 of the IVIotor Vehides Act. 1988 Presenf: Shri A.L. Singraul, leamed counsel for the appetlant. None for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Dashrath Gupta and Shri Sanjay Gupta, leamed counsel Tor respondent No.3. ORDER (27th August, 2010) .The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant Suresh Nishad is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident ..i.^1" r*f!i ^Qa:. '!Et!>^^ f -^y Claims Tribunal, Raipur (fbr short 'the Tribunat') vide award dated 03.10.2003, passed in Claim Case No. 117/2032. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,55,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim pditionunder Section 166 of the Motor Vehlctes Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 24.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Suresh Nishad sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 24.05.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No. MP-26-D/4159; as the offending vehicte Truckon the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to theclaimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award., the above findings recordKf by the Tribunal have now attained finality^ 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the ctaimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent bythe lf -'-^i(i,, ,. .^^ •il % ^3|'. » "':"v' / I;-«" •" VK.^ claimant on his treatment awarded a lumpsum of Rs.75,000?- as compensation to the claimant. 6) Shri A.L. Singraul, leamed counset for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.75,000/- only, though the appeilant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident and as such coutd not attend his occupation as Mason fora period of 4-6 months resulting in substantial monitory loss. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta and Shri Sanjay Gupta, leamed counsel for respondent No.3, United India Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the Tribunal has been quite liberat in awarding substantial compensatfon of Rs.75,000/- to the claimant. 8) Claimant Suresh Nishad was 28 years of age on the date of the accident. He was Mason by occupation. It is estabtished from the evndence of AW2 Dr. Sandeep Sahu that the claimant sustained multiple fractures in the motor accident. It is a matter of common knowledge that substantial amount ts required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. On account of the fractures sustained by the claimant in the motor accident he could not have worked as Mason for a period of about 4-6 months, resutting in monitory loss to him. 9) The compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad n" --""•^. "^'" ^9-. 'y.iV' •jf 4 features of the case, In our opinion, is certainly on the lowerside and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 10) Considering alt the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.11,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) The appeal filed by the appellanU claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The appetlant/ claimant is further awarded a sum ofRs.11,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation, in addition 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 depostting the totat sum of Rs.11,000/- before the conceming claims Tribunal. 13) No order as to costs. ~——- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu Ji-1