!/' ';•.r' '^, 1 ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1232 of 2009 Appellant Claimarit Respondents Non-claimants Chunnilal, s/o Harilal, aged about 54 years, r/o village Taroud, Tahsil Balod, district Durg C.G. VERSUS Pradeep Bachhad, s/o Prafull Bachhad, aged about 26 years, r/o village Bande police station Bande, district Kanker C.G. (Driver of vehicle bearing registration No.C.G. 19/D/0168) Dilip Kumar Rai, s/o Deodas Rai, r/o P.V. No. 7, P.0. Chote Kapsi, Pakhanjure, districtKanker C.G. (registered owner of vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 19/D/0168) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Malviya Nagar, Durg, district Durg C.G. (Insurer of vehicle bearing registration No. C.G. 19/D/0168) Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act. Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vinod Deshmukh, counsel on behalf of Shri K.N, Chaturvedi, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER >th (13InJuly,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by RajeevGupta, C.J. T Appellant/claimant Chunnilal is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, district Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 22.04.2008, passed in Claim Case No.48/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,26,000/- 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 27.10.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,07,000/- 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 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.C.G.19D/0168 liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above finding recorded by the Tribunal has now 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 awarded Rs.1,00,000/- towards permanent disability to the extent of 30%;* Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.1,000/- for special diet and Rs.1,000/- for damage to the claimant's scooter. The Tribunal did not award any sum towards medical expenses as the claimant did not produce any bill or voucher before the Tribunal to establish the amount spent on ,^> treatment. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,07,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,07,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing oftheclaim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,07,000/- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 30%. 7) Shri Vinod Deshmukh, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle Bolero, on the other hand, contended that the compensation of Rs.1,07,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 8) Claimant Chunnilal was aged about 54 years on the date of tlie accident. He was working as driver in Public Works Department getting salary of Rs.8,000/- per month. Though it is established that the claimant sustained fracture of his right hand in the motor accident, the claimant has admitted in his evidence before the Tribunal that he was continuing in the government job as driver getting the same salary which he was getting prior to the accident. Thus, it is apparent that the claimant did not suffer any loss of future earning capacity on account of the injuries and ^ fractures sustained by him in the motor accident. Since, the claimant was in the government service the entire amount spent by him on treatment must have been reimbursed by the government. In all probability, it is on account of this fact that no bills and vouchers were produced by the claimant before the Tribunal for establishing the amount spent on his treatment. 9) The compensation of Rs.1,07,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in thecontext of the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 10) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation fails and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justiee Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge nimmi