' APPELLANT Claimant 1 l i x i l RESRON£ENT8 I ‘ Framing, Rajendra Prasad Tiwaxi Iaged about 21 years, Occupation '(Deepra) Near Baba Devta, Durg, District Durg ‘(Chhattisgarm R W Khailagarh, Tahsil Khaitagarh, b Rajnandgaon, SINGLE BENCH: HoN’BLE SHRI R.L.JHANw& J. ' :Misc. Aggea! No.1180 of zoos Pradeép Kumar 'I‘1wan, son of —Photo resident _ of Meelpala ‘7' VERsus ‘ 1 Pushpendra alias Gabbar Singh son of Mmtunjay Singh Resident Raj Family, District Chhattisgarh Uttam Chand Vaidh, son of Raju Lal Vaidh Rcsident of Gole Bazar, Khairagarh,‘ KhajJagarh', Tahsil Distict Chhattisgarh The Oriental Insurance Company, Branch O$ce Rajnandgaon, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh AL UNDER SECTION 173 6F THE MOTO VEHICLES ACT 1988 Rajnandgaon, Kamthi Linc, Dishict MlséELLANEous APPE M HIGH COtiRT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR of Ward No.4, 81m Vinod Tekam, counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No. 1. l Shri PL. Prajapati, ooynsel for respondent No.2. Shn' Aditya Shanna andk§hri saurabh Shanna, counsel for j ; respondentiNo.3. 1 ORDER (13.3.2011) VR.L.Jhanw‘at, J Appéllant—Pradeep Kumar Tiwari is seeking enhancement of the 'c0311penSation awarded by L the 9th Additional Motor ¥ Accidemt Clmms ’I‘nbunal (FTC) Durg (for short ‘thc Tnbunal’) vide award date§ 13 5 2005 passed 1n C1mm Case No 380/2004. ‘ 2. As‘égamst the compensauon of Rs 5 7O 000/ claimed by g the appellant/c1a1mant by mmg a clmm pehtlon under Sectlon 166 of tLhe Motor Vemcles Act for the mjunes sustamed by h1m 1n the mo1‘:or acc1dent on. 17 9 2002 the Tnbunal awarded a total sum of Rs 27 102/ / as compensauon to the claimant along wxth mtexest @ 6 % pa from the date of mmg of the 01mm petttlon ull the date of actual payment l 3. The Tnbunal on a close scrutiny of the entlre ev1dence led t befom 1t held that the clmmant sustamed multtple mJunes and § hacmre 1n, ms leg 1n the motor acoldent on 17.9.2002; the g accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the dnver ‘ 3 of the ohi'endmg vehlcle — Motorcycle Yamha beanng reglstratlon ‘ No RX1100 CG 08ZE 1464 as the offending vemcle motorcycle on the datel of the acc1dent was Insured w1th the Onental Insurance Company, ‘ the ,lnsurance Company was liable to pay ' 1 ‘ l : 1 . . i compensatlon to the clmmant. 1 4. L Asl the respondents have not hled any appeal against the award the above iindmgs recorded by the Tnbunal have now attamed hnahty [a ‘ {5. ' 'I‘ E Tnbunal cons1dermg the number and nature of i nyunes proved to have been sustamed by the cla1mant 1n the motor acc1dent and the amount proved to have been spent on l'ns ”'V ' tma§tment, awarded Rs.5,102/ towards medical expenses; Rs.20,000/ -for pain and swering and Rs.2,000/- for special‘diet. The Tribnna], thus awarded a total sum of Rs.27,102/.—‘ as conlpensatio'n to the (claimant. ‘The Tribunal further directed. payment of interest on the above amount of compensation @ 6 % per annum mm the date of fhng of the cla1m peuuon till the date of tual payment 6. I Learned counsel for the appellant argued that Tnbunal has not! Wed any amount towards loss of mcome and has not awarded the complete med1cal expendlture The appellant] c1a1lmant was not able to do h1s work for about 6 months and he was admltted to hosp1tal on account of mjunes and h‘acture of his Tibia and Fibula bones, since 18.9.2002 to 29.10.2002 and thereafter, ‘he was again admitted for extraction of D—nail h‘om 26. ‘2004 to 15.4.2004. It can be easily presumed that dehnitely p ap ellant was not able to go on his work' due to hacture one ' can[not Jom his duty for at least 6 months therefore considering the loss of income Rs 5 000/ p m the amount of compensatio should be enhanced 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No. 3/ Ori ntal Insurance Company supported the award and oontended th t the compensation of Rs.27,1‘02/ - awarded by the Tribunal is jus and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances o the! present case. 1 t t 8. l On due consideration of submission of learned counsel for the? partles and the relevant factors that the appellant was admitted m hosp1ta1 for two tunes for near about 2 months, and ' he was not able to go on hls work for 3 months the Tribunal has no awarded any amount towards loss of mcome, after seemg these all relevant factors including the above mentroned broad i l r - n f features of the case, l am of the opinion that Rs.21,000[— the compensation of amount of compcnsation Woula makel Rs’.27,102/7 awarded by the ’I‘Iibunal a3 just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9. The compensation, 1n addmon to the sum of Rs 27,102] - awarded by the Tnbunal Respondent No 3 the Oriental Insurance Company 1s granted three months tune for deposmng the sum of Rs 21 000/ — before the concerning Claims Tribuna 1o! @ further awani of inclusive of interest component on the enhanced appenant/ claimant for appeal tiled by the The enhancement appeHant/clmmant of the compensauon, 1s awarded therefore, further sum 1s allowed of Rs 21 1n 000/ part moluswe of interest comgonent on the enhanced amount of \: x x I t v t 11. :No order as to costs. l