/O^SB!:^: /^at^ 'fl®-- '.^.ap ^L- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Respondents Misc._ARBeai (C) No. 33 of 2010 Satish Kumar Sinha, s/o Atal Sinha, aged about 21 years, r/o village Mangatha, tahsil & district Rajnandgaon C.G. VERSUS 1 Gurpal Singh @ Gurupal Singh, s/o Vichitra Singh @ Bachitar Singh Sikkha Jat, aged about 31 years, occupation Driver & Trailer Swami, r/o village Kajanpur, post Kandila, district Gurudaspur (Punjab) 2 New India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Power House Bhilai, district Durg C.G. Memo of ap^eal ynderAection 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellant. Shri Raj Awasthi and Shri Shailendra Sharma, .. counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (18th0ctober,2011) <• The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/ claimant Satish Kumar Sinha is seeking enhancement of^the_compensation awarded by the Motor :-:" 2ssy^T^.\ 'A'"%. c^ ""^ ^- ^;— .:a. s ,-y .A.C.No33of2010 ^3 Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 04.08.2009, passed in Claim Case No.11/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,29,600/- claimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.07.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.34,000/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Satish Kumar Sinha sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident on 02.07.2006; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck-Trailor bearing registration No.P.B.-06/E/7158; as the above offending vehicle Truck-Trailor on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance C6mpany was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Truck/Trailor has not filed any appeal against the impugned award challenging the above finding recorded "by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on r —.-::1..„„-.... 'a M.A.C.No33of2010 2-y treatment awarded Rs.25,000/- towards loss in the future earning capacity on account of the permanent disability; Rs.6,500/- towards medical expenses; Rs.1,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.1,000/- for loss of income during the period 6f treatment; and Rs.500/- for special diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.34,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor acddent. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.34,000/- @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.34,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries induding fracture in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 20%. 7) Shri Raj Awasthi and Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck/Trailor, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and propec c&rfipensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Claimant Satish Kumar Sinha was aged about 21 years on the date of the accident. He was a Labour by occupation. According to the' claimant, he used to earn Rs.80/- per day as labpur. The claimant sustained multiple sgrious injuries including M.A.C.No33of2010 ^ fracture in the motor accident is borne out from the evidence available on record. The claimant being labour could not have performed his duties as Labour on account of the fracture sustained by him in the motor accident for af considerable period resulting in monetary loss to him. 9) The sums of Rs.1,000/-; Rs.1,000/- and Rs.500/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering; loss of income during the period of treatment; and special diet are certainly on the lower side and deserve to be enhanced. 10) The compensation of Rs.34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 11) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.10,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.34,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 12) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.34,000/- awarded by'the Tribunal. .^._.-.uS"!~s<_ . .^ A.C.No33of2010 2^; 13) Respondent No.2 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 14) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge .^ ...-_.-.;-"-^_.