IL . .;.' i ...f..— oeilant 1>D1 C OUOI 1->1 tei, age< h'arasa.aon, atei, s/o Sadaram bout 18 years, R/o :t. Jagdaipur (C.G.) Prahlad, s/o Siyaram Sonwani, R/o village Gorgaon, Tahsil Keshkal, distt. Jagdaipur. 2. Mohd. Hanif, S/o Abdul Razzak, r/o village Keshkai, distt. Jagdaipur. 3. National Insurance Co., near Post Office, Jagdalpur (C.G.) Mlsc,_ftpiieaLunder_Sect!onJ73.ofMQtorVehicles_Act 'resent: Shri Vimiesh Bajpai, counsel for the appeilant, Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. •th The foilowlng order of the Court was passed i ;by ajeev Gupta, C.J. Appeliant Purshottam Patel is seeking enhancement OT the compensation awarded bv the First Additional Motor AGcident Clalms Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') 'vjde award dated 29.07.2003, passed in ciaim case No.50/2000. ; -.;%' 'Va is // .<3-' ^ 2) As against t'ne compensation of Rs.8,25.000/- ciaimed by the appeiiant/' claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor .Vehicles Act for the iniuries sustained bv hlm in the motor accident on 02-07-2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.12,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum In the event of the insurer's failure to pay the compensation wlthin one month ofthe passing ofthe award. 3) Shri Vlmlesh Bajpai, iearned counsel for the appeilant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding !ow compensation of Rs.12,000/- only, though the appellant/claimant sustalned fractures of tibia and fibula bones in the accident and spen.t substantial amount on treatment. Awasthi, learnea counsel for respondent No.3, Mational insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, suppQrted the award and contended that, t'ne compensation of Rs.12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in tne facts and circumstances of ths present case. 5) Claimant Purshottam Patel on the date or the accident was aged about 18 years. He was a stude"t of 8 standard. He sustained fractures oftibia and fibula bones of his right !eg is smply borne out from the evidence available on record. The Tribunai's records further reveal that the application filed by the claimant w examination of the doctor before the Tribunal was dismissed vide order dated 30-06-2003 on the ground that the appiication was file at the fag end of the case. 6) Be that as it may, the compsnsation of Rs.12,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad fegtures of the case and the fact that substantia! amount Is requlred to be spent on the treatment of fractures, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 7) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.10,000/- inclus've of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation wou!d make the compensation of Rs.12,000./- awarded by the Tribuna! as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of th< •presentcase. 8) The appeal filed by the appeilanb' ciaimant for enhancemera of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.10,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensatton in addition to the sum of Rs.12,000/- awarded bythe Tribunal. 9) Respondent No.3 the Nationa! Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.10.000/- before the concerning Ciaims Tribunal. 10) NQ order as to costs. ! S(V- Chief Jusdce subbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge