IN THE HIGH COURT OF 6BDICATURE AT BILASEUR (C.G.) M.A.No. '¥:oi> /2oo2. APPELLANT Laxmaniya wife of Sudama koir, CLKIMANT aged about 6O years, Occupatiom—i Agriculture & House work, R/o_ village-Khairi , Thana & Post- Patna, Tah. Baikunthpur, Distt.— KOriya (C¢GO) u V E R S U S RESPGNDENT NON—APPLICANT l. National Insurance Co.Ltd., / Through : Branch Maaager, Natioaal.Insurance Co.Ltd. Korba Post Office, Korba Distt. Korba (c.G.)a(INSURER) 2. Ramlal Jaiswal S/OWMahadev qaiswal, aged about 4O yearsa ’resident of’village-Chhindiya~ Thana & Pest— Patna, Tah. Baikhnthpur, Distt. Koriya E (c.G.) . (OWNER) 3. Santlal son of Buddu Ram, ég, aged about‘28 years , Occupation—Driver, R/o village- Bardiya, Thana & Post— Patna, Tah. Baikunthpur‘ Distt.- Kcriya (C.G.)(DRIVER)‘ I,» APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHIQggyACT° 1988 FOR ENHANCEMENT OF THE AWARD XI—HC-22 mam mm mm WWW i h9-12-2oos ‘ Shri Ashok Shukia and Shri OP. Yadav, counsel for the appellant. Shri Anand Kumar Guplla, counsel for respondent No.1/ insurance Company. None for respondents No.2 & 3. The case was listed before Lok Adalat, but could not be compromised; therefore, it was eferred to the Court for regular hearing. Learned counsel for bo the parties are heard tinally. Learned Additional M or Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, :(henceforth ‘the Tribunal’) vi e award dated 31-1-2002 allowed the compensation of Rs.3000l- tot e appellant. Feeling aggrieved this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hencefor ‘the Act, 1988‘) has been preferred for enhancement of compensation Laxmania (PW-1) in h r statement has stated that she received ‘injury on her head, chest and ight hand. She was medically examined. ‘Sa far as iniuries are concern d, her statement is duty corroborated with ‘medical examination report (E .P/3). She also deposed that she is under treatment and she incurred e penditure to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, her working efficiency has been re uced. To support the above evidence no Medical Officer has been exam ned. During arguments lear ed counsel for the appellant contended that atleast appellant shou Rs.10.000/-. have been awarded an amount of t l 3 (@W) ' XI-HC-22 /"i"’> / 2 3a W, m,W m ‘ .M B Wm OWL—x Wm “q 200 . m W am WW mm WWW www§ww L, %aw%tran%31 Medica! omcer has not been examined and it appears that due to \ ‘ illiteracy appellant could not submit medicai vouchers and failed to call Medical Officer for evidence but it is a known factum that whenever a K person met with an accident such person remains under shock, pain and I agony. An amount of R530 0/- towards compensation appears to be a Vmeager sum, if in place'of s.3000/- it would have been Rs.8000/‘ that R‘ should have been a just com ensation. ln the result, the a peat of the appellant is partly allowed. Respondent No.1llnsurance Company is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/— (Rupees Five Tho sand Only) in addition to what has already been awarded by the Tribun . The aforesaid amoun shall be paid within a month from today and in default respondent N .1 shall pay interest at a rate of Rs.9% per pr annum till realization. Res ondent No.1 shall also pay costs of the appeal to the appellant and towards counsel fee shall paJyianamount of L A. Rs.500l- (Rupees Five Hundred Only). Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge