'v. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLESHRI G. IUINHAJUDDIN, J. Misc._ABpeaj (C)JMo^904^of2008 Appellant ResRondents Barsan, s/o Shri Chatur Das Manikpuri, aged about 24 years, r/o village Ataria, distt. Durg presently residing C/o Radheshyam, s/o Dwarika Sahu, Jarwai, post Surdung, P.S. Bhilai-3, distt. Durg C.G. Claimant VERSUS Gayatri Bai, w/o late Shri Ramkumar Banjare, r/o Khapri (Krishna) P.S. & TAHSIL Nawagarh, distt. Durg, presently residing at Ward No.21, House No.90, near Rewaband Talab, Kawardha, P.S. Kawardha, distt. Kabirdham C.G. Owner of the vehicle Divisional Manager, Baj'aj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd., Shivmohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Raipur C.G. Insurer A@peal under Section 173 of the IVIotor Vehicles Act Present: Shri P.R. Patankar, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.S. Rajput, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER ith (30'"November,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. -\- •y /'€~'^'"% M.A.C.No. 904 of 2008 i\ ' ^ Appellant/ claimant Barsan is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 09.04.2008, passed in Claim Case No.11/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.13,55,0007- claimed by the appellant/claimant, byfiling a claim petition underSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13.11.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.32.000/- as compensation to the claimant 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 that claimant Barsan sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 13.11.2006; the accident occurred due to the negligence of the claimant himself and that of the motorcyclist of the other motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G.09-A/5925; though the above motorcycle on the date of the accident was insured with Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, as the motorcyclist was not holding a valid and effective driving license, the insurance company was not liable to pay compensation to the claimant and the liability in that. behalf was of the owner-cum- driver of the motorcycle. 4) 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 .A.C.No. 904 of 2008 (V- treatment, awarded Rs.51,000/- towards loss in the future earning capacity; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.3,000/- for medical expenses; Rs.2,000/- for conveyance; Rs.2,000/- for special diet; and Rs.1,000/- for attendant. The Tribunal, thus, assessed the total compensation at Rs.64,000/-. As the claimant himself was held liable for the accident to the extent of 50%, the insurer of the other motorcycle was directed to pay Rs.32,000/- i.e. 50% of Rs.64,000/- as compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.32,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant; in holding that the claimant also contributed to the accident to the extent of 50%; in assessing the compensation at Rs.64,000/- only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.32,000/- only. 6) Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the other motorcycle, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that as the motorcycle was being driven by the owner of the motorcycle without any valid and effective driving license, the Trib'unal has rightly exonerated the insurance company from its liability to pay compensation to the claimant. Y. -'"'? .A.C. No. 904 of 2008 7) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal leading to exoneration of the insurer of the motorcycle is concerned, we gather from para 10 of the impugned award that the owner-cum- driver of the other motorcycle was holding a driving license which was issued on 19.03.1998 and was valid till 29.08.2006. The said license was got renewed from 21.12.2006. The unfortunate accident wherein the claimant sustained injuries took place on 13.11.2006. From the above mentioned sequence of the events, it becomes apparent that the owner-cum-driver of the motorcycle was not holding any license between 30.08.2006 and 20.12.2006 and as such also 6n the date ofthe accident i.e. 13.11.2006. In this view of the matter, we do not find any infirmity in the above finding recorded by the Tribunal leading to exoneration of the insurer of the motorcycle. 8) So far as the finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that the claimant also equally contributed to the accident is concerned, we gather from para 7 of the impugned award that claimant Barsan was also prosecuted by the Police in regard to the motor accident and in those proceedings he admitted his guilt before the Magistrate. That apart, the claimant frankly admitted in his evidence before the Tribunal that he was not having any driving license at all on the date of the accident and that he was carrying two pillion-riders on the motorcycle. It appears that the other motorcyclist also sustained injuries in the motor accident. In the above factual scenario, we do not find any infirmity in the •\ .~t 1 fs»' subbu M.A.C. N0. 904 of 2008 finding recorded by the Tribunal holding that the claimant also equally contributed to the accident. 9) The compensation of Rs.64,000/- assessed by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the fact that the permanent disability certified by the doctor was only 10% and that too only in regard to one hand and not the entire body of the claimant; and the fact that the bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal were to the extent of Rs.600/- and the Tribunal even then has awarded Rs.3,000/- in that behalf, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 10) lt is true that the Tribunal assessed the total compensation at Rs.64,000/- and awarded only Rs.32,000/- to the claimant as he himself was found responsible for the accident to the extentof50%. 11) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- 'Chief Justice G.Minjiajjud,n Judge \, ^.S^^itW'csc.xsfsassisss