M.A^^^F2w4 gt^n Ben^ v. HarmendraShukla

DB: Hon'ble Mr. Abhav Manohar Sapre & Hon'ble Mr. G. Minhaiuddin, II. Misc. Appeal No.1282 of 2004 Appellant Shyma Lal Respondents Versus Harrriendra Shukla and others Present: None for theappellant. None for the respondents, though served and MiscellaneousADDeals Under Section 173 of the MotorVehicles Act, 1988. O RAL ORDE R (Passed on 08th january, 2013) The following Court passed by Abhay Maridhar Sapre, I. Heard.

#2. - This is an appeal filed by the claimants under Section 173 of the Mofor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 11.08.2004 passed by the 10thAdditional Motor Accident ClaimsiT'rjbunal,;(FTC) Bilaspur short called 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No.79/2004. (hereinafter By the impugned award, the learned Member of the 3. Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimants under Section 166 oftheActand awarded a sum of Rs.2,68;500/- to the claimant - Shyam Lal for the injury sustaihed to him in vehicular accident.

#4. In view of short controversy involved in the appeal, it isreally not necessary to take note of the facts in detail exceptthose which are necessary. It is also forthe reason findings in relation to nature of accident, how it occurred, vvho was responsible forcausing injury, liability, •Ji^l •liil'ti!"" -1ijl9i;::^ ^ etc, are decided in favour of claimant by the Tribunal. In the absence of any challenge to these findings by the respondents, by not filing any cross appeal or cross objection, these finding? have become final. It is an injury ca'se. On 25.03.97 the appellant was 5. coming to Bilaspur in a jeep bearing regisrationNo.MPO-23- G/2183 driven by Harmendra Kumar Shula-respondent No.l herein. Due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent No.l herein, near Larrigarh, the jeep met with an accident.; Due to this accident, the appellant sustained serioys injuries on both pf his legs. He was sent to Primary Health Centre, iKota for.medical treatment and thereafter he was referred to District Hospital, Bilaspur for further treatment. He was admitted in ICU for several days. Though the-appellant yndergone many operations during his treatment, he became permanently disabled. This gave rise:to filing ofthe claim petition by the claimant under Section 166 of the Act-against the respondents, out of which, this appeal arises, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him and for grant of other claims arising ;Qut, pf The non-applicants contested theclaim. Parties adduced evidence. injuries sustained.

#7. The Tribunal on appreciating the entire evidence adduced by the claimant partly allowed the claim petition. The Tribunal towards medical awarded Rs.10,000/- treatment, special diet and transportation, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.42,500/- towards loss of income -during treatment -(17 months), Rs.1,56,000/- towards Joss of incpme-^ue to permanent disability and Rs.50,000/- loss due to permanent idisability. Thus the claimant was awarded a total sum of Rs.2,68,500/- by way of compensation of the injuries systained.by him, It is this determination, which than financial towards .other ^ii'F •^'i"^' S&a t^Si^S^^^&& ^^91 ^^^^^;^;^'i.^^B^-&.-!?:^^-.^%^ ^•^^^^^^•^:^-i^MiM^@%;IS^;-;i^"ll ^••^> 1^1 ., '\.'v^ ^ -2^ > is impugned by the claimant, being on lower side hence this appeal for enhancement. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and 8. having perused record of the case, we are inclined to allow theappeal in part.

#9. We have gone through the evidence adduced by the In our claimant on the issue of injury sustained by him. opinion, taking into consideration the nature of injury, such as fracture pn both legs, the extent of disability occurred in the body pf the appellant,(claimant) amounting to 40% as a result of which he claims to be not as fit as he was prior to accident in his day-tQ-day work, resulting in reducing his capacity to spme extent of work, the expenditure incurred in receiying medical mental pain suffered due to his involvement in accident, to enhanee in lump sum the we consider the loss and treatment in actual, it proper compensatipn from Rs.2,68,500/- In otherwords, in oyr vievy/the claimantis held -enfitled for a tptal sum of Rs.2.90.000/- bv way of compensation for to Rs.2,90,000/-. theinjyriesrsystainedlby.hi'm., , .

#10. In pur opinipn, the compensation which we have awarded to the claimant is a just, reasonable and proper looking to the faets and circumstances of the case and taking into accoynt the law laid down by the Supreme Court in these types otcases in relation to several heads taken note ofsupra with reference to evidence brought on record by/the parties. jndeed in sych cases, n;o fixed and any static formula as.siach is provided for determining the compensation and the^anieis required to be determined on the basis of totality of evidence.adduced and the relevant factors which. are required to be taken into consideration as mentioned supra. It is on this basis, the 'lli]]"]' ,,l;IIBi 9S Courts have to work out award of reasonable compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained.

#11. In this view ofthe matter, theappeal succeeds and is allowed in part. indicated above. The Impugned award is modified tothe extent sum mentioned in para 9 will carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of application till realization. All other findings are "enhanced upheld being not under challenge.

#12. No cost. / (~..^. Sd/- Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge Sd/- G, Minhajuddin Judge Bini