HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble Shri Rajeev Guptai C.J. & Hon’ble' Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha J M.A. No. 153 of 2002 Shriram Gupta Vs. v Ramlal & Others ORDER For consideration Sd/— Sunil Kumar S'inha y ‘ b ~ i Judge lé ’ 3 ~ _——’/—/‘ I Sd/. é ~, ‘ g Chief Justice s /04/2010 Post for Order Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA M/§% \J W/ \ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble ShriRa'eev Gu ta C.J. & N Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha J. years, R/o Sardar Road Carriers Ring Road, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Smt. Anupata Chaupada, W/o. Aswani Chaupada, R/o Sardar Road Carriers, Tatibandh, Raipur, Tah. and Distt. Raipur (C;G.) 3. The United india insurance Co. Ltd., Branch office No. 16 Sneh Nagar, indore M.P., Through : Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kachheri Chauk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) (‘x( MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ' ACT 1988 AQ‘Qearance: Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondents 1 & 2. “a . Mr. Sanjay S. Agrawal, Advocate for respondent No.3. ORDER ( g‘.o4.2o1o) Following order of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha J. N (1) The appellant/claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of amount of compensation awarded in Claim Case No. 85/2001 by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur vide award dated 2 12 2001. 1 M.A. No. 153 of 2002 APPELLANT ¢laimant 1 Shriram Gupta, S/o Gayadin Gupta, Aged about 52 years, Occupation: Plant lncharge, R/o Veersavarkar Nagar, Hirapur, Hirapur, Tahsil District Raipur (C.G.) Versus RQEONDENTS 1. Ramlal S/o Premchand, Aged about (2) 2 M‘A. No. 153 0f2002 The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- The appellant/claimant filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor‘ Vehicles' Act ctaiming compensation of Rs.8,55,000/- for the personal injuries sustained by him in the mOtOF accident which took place 0n 25.12.2000. appeiiant/claimant pleaded that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending truck by its driver. He further pleaded that due to said accident, he sustained multiple grievous injuries and his scooter was also damaged. He was hospitalized from 26;12.2000 to 5.1.2001. He suffered permanent V ‘disability to the extent of 60% on account of injuries sustained by him. The parte. The ‘owner and driver of the offending vehicle remained ex- The Insurance Company while admitting the factum of insurance of the vehicle, opposed the claim of the appellant. The Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver, therefore, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation. it further held that on the basis of Ex.-P/5 & Ex.-P/7‘ it was established that the claimant sustained fracture of Patella bone which was a grievous injury. The certificate (Ex.-P/1) showing permanent disability to the extent of 60% was disbelieved. The Tribunal awarded Rs.75,000/— on account oftreatment. It further awarded Rs.15,000/— for mental and physical pains and it also awarded Rs.10,000/- as loss of earning during the course of treatment. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total ‘sum of Rs.1 ,00,000/- as compensation to the appellant for the grievous injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal also awarded interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 3 MA. No. 153 of2002 ZCa Mr. Aditya Khare; learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/claimant, argued that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the ap‘pellant could not establish that he suffered permanent disability on account of the accident. Therefore, a low compensation has been awarded. (3) (4) On the other hand, Mr. Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3/lnsurance Company, opposed these‘ arguments and supported the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. . (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the claim case. .{_ ‘ (6) Permanent disability certificate (Ex.—P/1) was issued by Dr. Anil Kumar Verma who was examined asAW—Z. Dr. Anil Kumar Verma (AW- 2) deposed that he had never treated the claimant. The said certificate (Ex.-P/1) was issued on 21.11.2001, whereas,'the accident took place on 25.12.2000. The certificate was not issued by the Medical Board. It was issued by Dr. Anil Kumar Verma (AW-2) in his personal capacity. Claimant— Shriram Gupta (AW—1) came with a case that Dr. Anil Kumar Verma (AW—2) had treated him for 4-5 months, whereas, the said version was falsified by the evidence of Dr. Anil Kumar Verma (AW-2) who admitted that he never treated the claimant. There are other infirmities in the evidence of the claimant (AW—1) which are discussed under issue No. 2 & 3. Dr. Anil Kumar Verma (AW-2) could not explain as to how he came to the conclusion that the claimant suffered permanent disability to the 4 M.A. No. 153 of2002 ‘ I ‘ \J extent of 60%. Even he did not depose that he saw earlier medical papers and X—ray reports of the claimant and then has issued the said certificate. The certificate also does not contain the basis of issuance of such certificate. It is in these circumstances, the Tribunal disbelieved the permanent disability certmcate filed by the claimant and held that the claimant could not establish that he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60% on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. We further find that it is nowhere mentioned in the certificate that the‘claimant suffered permanent disability. ln fact, it only mentions that he suffered disability to‘the extent of 6Q%. Nature of the disability i.e. temporary or permanent is not there. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any fault in the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the claimant could not establish that he suffered permanent disability to the extent of 60%. (7) As far as the amount awarded to the appellant/claimant is concerned, the medical bills which were relating to the appellant have been allowed; the expenditure incurred in the treatment of the appellant has been awarded; the amount for pain and suffering has been awarded; and the amount for loss of earning has also been awarded. (8) The law in relation to awarding compensation in accident cases is well settled. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunals are under obligation to award “just and reasonable" compensation to the genuine claimants after determining the factum of accident as also the factum of ' rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offending vehicle. lt has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be windfall 5 M.A. N0. 153 of2002 for the victim. The statutory provisions clearly communicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribUnais have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particular facts and circumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Everymethod or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of “just” compensation which is the’pivotal consideration and requires judicious appro‘aEh. The expression “just” denotes equitability, fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. Please see State of Haryana and another —Vs- Jasbir Kaur and others (20032 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. Rebel/o (Mrs.) and others —vs- Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and another, (1999) 1 SCC 90. (9) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of compensation. There is no substance in the appeal filed the appellant. (10) The appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. (11) There shall be no orders as to the cost. \. ’i‘ Sd/_ ye Sdl- _ l. CHIEF JUSTICE Sun“ Kmnar Judge Stnha \V l \ l