LAIMANT ^ \^. .-^9? •^ "r tt kumar Sahu, S/o. Shri Rama Sahu, aged v. RBSPONDENTS : 1. 10N-CLAIMANTS

Gurmeet Singh Man S/o. Shri Gurunam Singh Man, aged about 22 years, R/o. Sunderganj ward, Dhamtari, Post,Thana Dhamtari (C.G.) (Driver ofthe vehicle) 85 District

2. Gurnam Singh Man S/o Late Trilochan Singh Man aged about 49 R/o Sunderganj ward, years, Dhamtari, District -Dhamtari (C.G.). (Owner of the Vehicle) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., ^ Branch office Dhamtari, District -Dhamtari (C.G.) ^^ MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 (2) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 ,r~~^"% '~~^ & 'ff^ w Q.'-7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SBi HON'BLE MR. IUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE Misc. Aopeal (C) No.468 of 2010 Appellant ResDondents Versus Dushyant Kumar Sahu Gurmeet Singh Man and others Present: Mr. PK Tulsyan, counsel for the appellant. Mr. AKAthaley, counsel for respondent No.3. ADpeal under Section 173 of the Mbtor Vehicles Act. 1988 ORAl; OR D^ R (Passed on 07th March, 2013) Heard.

2. This is an appeal filed by ttie appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short'the Act') against award dated 10,12,2009 passed by the-lst Additional Motor Aceidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur No. 145/2007..: --...: .. (for shQr.t^'the Tribynal') - :/ . ;- . in. Claim Case .L. .._ . . . .

3. By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition flled by the claimant under Section 166 oftheActand awarded a total sum of Rs.1,83,986/- by way of compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in vehicularaccident.

4. appeal So the questi&n that arises for consideration in this is whether any filed by the Glaimant (appellant) case for enhaneement is made out in the award of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant and if so, to what extent? g@'*"iSffiSB?!e;Ssc.?S ^^^•^Sas.isS^^:^-;:'^ "r^^ '-^- n r', It is an injury case. On 14.12.06, injured Dushyant 5. Sahu was going to Jagdalpur from Bhilai along with his superior Officer in a Ambassador Car bearing registration No.CG-03/1651. When they reached near Gothiyaheed Abhanpur, a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.CG-05 B/7496, driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit their car. Due to this accident, Dushyant Kumar Sahu sustained severe injuries on his body such as fracture in his hip, dislocation of hip bone and paralysis of left leg below the knee. At the time of the accident, the injured claimant was 33 years old and was working as Constable in Chhatfisgarh Police Department and used to draw a salary of Rs.6850/- It is alleged that due to this accident, per month. claimant suffered permanent disability. is this event, which led to filing of the claim petition under Section 166 the respondents, out of which this the Act against It appeal arises, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The respondents contested the claim. Parties adduced evidence.

6. The Tribunal on appreciating the entire evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the claim petition. The Tribunal towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards mental and physical pain, Rs.10,000/- towards awarded Rs.30,986/- diet, Rs.8,000/- towards special towards future aspects, Rs.35,000/- transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards assistance Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income during treatment, Rs^.S.OOOi- towards pfffnanent treatment Rs.15,000/- day to day sufferings. Thus the claimant was awarded a (75%) Rs.10,000/- sum of Rs.1,83,986/- disability by way of future compensation for the injuries sustained by him. It is this determination, which is impugned by the claimant, being on lower side, hence this appeal for enhancement. 't"^-'-'i^^tas '^ s-sx EE -s" r ^ Having heard learned counsel for the parties and 1 am inclined to

7. having perused the record of the case, allow this appeal in part.

8. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the In my claimant on the issue of injury sustained by him. opinion, taking into.,consideration the nature of injury, 75% permanent disability (dislocation in left hip, fracture in hip joinder and paralysis in left leg below the knee) occurred in the left leg of the appellant (claimant), as a resutt of which he claims to be not as fit as he was prior to accident in his day-to-day work, resultihg in reducing his capacity to some extent of work, the expenditure incurred in receiving medical in actual, treatment suffered due to his involvement in accident, the loss and mental pain 1 consider it proper to enhance in lump sum the compensation from Rs.1,83,986/- to Rs2,50,000/-. In other words, in my view, the claimant is held entitled for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Indeed, the claimant has become at

9. looking to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the injured claimant, which are of permanent nature, least partially dependant onthe other family members. True it is that his job remains and he is given office work, yetso far his dependency is concemed, the same would continue to remain on others. In my opinion,

10. the compensation which 1 have awardgd to the claimants is a just, reasonable and proper looking to-the facts and circumstances ofthe case and the same js awarded taking jrito account thelawlaid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases in relation to several heads taken note of supra with reference to evidence bought on record by the parties. Indeed, in such -^^^^-s-^%?s . 'a T^ cases, no fixed and static formula as such is provided for determining the compensation and it is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced coupled with relevant factors. It is on this basis, the Courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation to the claimant. This is what has been done in this case-.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. 1 have gone through In my opinion and as observed supra, these authorities. every case dependsupon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensation. Indeed, taking into consideration these authorities and then applying the law so laid down to the facts of this case, 1 have arrived at the figure of enhanced compensation mentioned supra.

12. The appeal, filed by the claimants is allowed to the above extent and the impugned award is modified accordingly. The enhanced sum would carry interest at the rate of6%fromthedate ofclaim petition till realization.

13. No cost. Blni Sd/- Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge SSSs;^ -SS lil?^^^:--^^:;"^? t.*s^f ^7%s^£^^^^^^

Gurmeet Singh Man S/o. Shri Gurunam Singh Man, aged about 22 years, R/o. Sunderganj ward, Dhamtari, Post,Thana Dhamtari (C.G.) (Driver ofthe vehicle) 85 District

2. Gurnam Singh Man S/o Late Trilochan Singh Man aged about 49 R/o Sunderganj ward, years, Dhamtari, District -Dhamtari (C.G.). (Owner of the Vehicle) The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., ^ Branch office Dhamtari, District -Dhamtari (C.G.) ^^ MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 (2) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 ,r~~^"% '~~^ & 'ff^ w Q.'-7 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SBi HON'BLE MR. IUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE Misc. Aopeal (C) No.468 of 2010 Appellant ResDondents Versus Dushyant Kumar Sahu Gurmeet Singh Man and others Present: Mr. PK Tulsyan, counsel for the appellant. Mr. AKAthaley, counsel for respondent No.3. ADpeal under Section 173 of the Mbtor Vehicles Act. 1988 ORAl; OR D^ R (Passed on 07th March, 2013) Heard.

2. This is an appeal filed by ttie appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short'the Act') against award dated 10,12,2009 passed by the-lst Additional Motor Aceidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar at Jagdalpur No. 145/2007..: --...: .. (for shQr.t^'the Tribynal') - :/ . ;- . in. Claim Case .L. .._ . . . .

3. By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition flled by the claimant under Section 166 oftheActand awarded a total sum of Rs.1,83,986/- by way of compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in vehicularaccident.

4. appeal So the questi&n that arises for consideration in this is whether any filed by the Glaimant (appellant) case for enhaneement is made out in the award of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant and if so, to what extent? g@'*"iSffiSB?!e;Ssc.?S ^^^•^Sas.isS^^:^-;:'^ "r^^ '-^- n r', It is an injury case. On 14.12.06, injured Dushyant 5. Sahu was going to Jagdalpur from Bhilai along with his superior Officer in a Ambassador Car bearing registration No.CG-03/1651. When they reached near Gothiyaheed Abhanpur, a Tata Indica car bearing registration No.CG-05 B/7496, driven rashly and negligently by its driver, hit their car. Due to this accident, Dushyant Kumar Sahu sustained severe injuries on his body such as fracture in his hip, dislocation of hip bone and paralysis of left leg below the knee. At the time of the accident, the injured claimant was 33 years old and was working as Constable in Chhatfisgarh Police Department and used to draw a salary of Rs.6850/- It is alleged that due to this accident, per month. claimant suffered permanent disability. is this event, which led to filing of the claim petition under Section 166 the respondents, out of which this the Act against It appeal arises, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The respondents contested the claim. Parties adduced evidence.

6. The Tribunal on appreciating the entire evidence adduced by the parties, partly allowed the claim petition. The Tribunal towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards mental and physical pain, Rs.10,000/- towards awarded Rs.30,986/- diet, Rs.8,000/- towards special towards future aspects, Rs.35,000/- transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards assistance Rs.30,000/- towards loss of income during treatment, Rs^.S.OOOi- towards pfffnanent treatment Rs.15,000/- day to day sufferings. Thus the claimant was awarded a (75%) Rs.10,000/- sum of Rs.1,83,986/- disability by way of future compensation for the injuries sustained by him. It is this determination, which is impugned by the claimant, being on lower side, hence this appeal for enhancement. 't"^-'-'i^^tas '^ s-sx EE -s" r ^ Having heard learned counsel for the parties and 1 am inclined to

7. having perused the record of the case, allow this appeal in part.

8. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the In my claimant on the issue of injury sustained by him. opinion, taking into.,consideration the nature of injury, 75% permanent disability (dislocation in left hip, fracture in hip joinder and paralysis in left leg below the knee) occurred in the left leg of the appellant (claimant), as a resutt of which he claims to be not as fit as he was prior to accident in his day-to-day work, resultihg in reducing his capacity to some extent of work, the expenditure incurred in receiving medical in actual, treatment suffered due to his involvement in accident, the loss and mental pain 1 consider it proper to enhance in lump sum the compensation from Rs.1,83,986/- to Rs2,50,000/-. In other words, in my view, the claimant is held entitled for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by him. Indeed, the claimant has become at

9. looking to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the injured claimant, which are of permanent nature, least partially dependant onthe other family members. True it is that his job remains and he is given office work, yetso far his dependency is concemed, the same would continue to remain on others. In my opinion,

10. the compensation which 1 have awardgd to the claimants is a just, reasonable and proper looking to-the facts and circumstances ofthe case and the same js awarded taking jrito account thelawlaid down by the Supreme Court in these types of cases in relation to several heads taken note of supra with reference to evidence bought on record by the parties. Indeed, in such -^^^^-s-^%?s . 'a T^ cases, no fixed and static formula as such is provided for determining the compensation and it is required to be determined on the basis of evidence adduced coupled with relevant factors. It is on this basis, the Courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation to the claimant. This is what has been done in this case-.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant cited some authorities for claiming enhancement. 1 have gone through In my opinion and as observed supra, these authorities. every case dependsupon facts of each case and one can rely upon the cases for awarding compensation. Indeed, taking into consideration these authorities and then applying the law so laid down to the facts of this case, 1 have arrived at the figure of enhanced compensation mentioned supra.

12. The appeal, filed by the claimants is allowed to the above extent and the impugned award is modified accordingly. The enhanced sum would carry interest at the rate of6%fromthedate ofclaim petition till realization.

13. No cost. Blni Sd/- Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge SSSs;^ -SS lil?^^^:--^^:;"^? t.*s^f ^7%s^£^^^^^^