,^y^:^^^ \ ,/s"^'w^\ //^- .^ 1 ^sy^s^ ''^-^.^^^^ ii :•</••' ^aA^^ ^\v ^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQARH AT BILA8PUR DJViSiONBJNCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJ6EV GUFTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J Misc Appeal (Gl No. 1251 ot 2008 Appellant SantoshKumar @Pilaram, aged abotrt Claimant 29 yeare, son 6f Fuduram Sahu. R/o Village Otegan, PS Simga, Tahsil & District Ralpur (CG) Respondents VERSUS 1 T Maheshwar Rao, ®/o Late T Venugopal Rao, R/o Rallway Colony, Post & Distrtet - Bilaspur (CG) 2 Smt Vijay Laxm, R/o Railway Colony, Post & District - Bilaspur (CG) 3 The New India Insurance Comf»ny Limited, Divisional Office -1, Kachhari Chowk, Post & Distriot Ralpur (CG) Miscellaneous Appeal under Sectfon 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon.counsel fortheappellant. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (30th June, 2011) The following order of e Court was paased by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. AppellanV claimant Santosh Kumar @ Pilaram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 1(yh Additional .^" ..A ":"%^v •S^m k '^.^^' "^ Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.02.2008, passed in Claim Gase No.06/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.t0,00,000/-, claimed by the appellant/daimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries su^ained by him in the motor accident on 13.02.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.6,56,800/- as compensation along with interest @®% per annum from the date of flling of the claim petition till the date of actualpayment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entiFe evjdeiioe led before it held the insurer of the offending vehtete Marvti Van bearing registration No.CG 10 A 1910 liable topay compensatlon to the claimant. The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor acddent; and the amount proved to haw been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.5,80,800/- towards loss in ie future eaming capacity on account of the permanent disabiltty to the extent of 90%; Rs.96,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.S.OOO/- towards conveyance and special diet; and Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum ®fRs.6.56,80@/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by Nm in the motor accident. The Tribunal Turther directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.©,56,8@0/"@ 6% per annum from the date of filing oy the ctalm petition till the date ofactual payment. "^^ 4) Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, leamd counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awardlng low compensation ofR8.6,56,800/" only, though the claimant on account of the jnjuries and the fractures systa'ned by him in the motor acddent and the resuttant permanent disability to the extent of 90% has been rendered unflt to pursue his occupation as Mason. 5) In a motor accident claim case what is Important is that tie compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunate should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ©fthe case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 6) Now, we shall examine as to whether the Gompen^rtton of Rs.6,56,800/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the factsand circumstancesoythe present case. 7) Claimant Santosh Kumar @ Pilaram was aged aliout 29 years on the date of the accicterrt. He was a Mason by oecypation. The bilte and vouchers produced by the claimarrt before the Tribunal in regard to the medical expenses said to have been incurred by him on his treatment were to the extent of Rs.9®,000/~ and the Tribunal has awarded the entire amount of Rs.96,000sf- towards medteal expenses. 8) The compensation of Rs.6,56,800/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the contexl of the above merrtloned broad features of the case, we are satisfied, does not call for any enhancement in thls appeal. padma ^r 9) As do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. the appeal flled by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation te liabte to be dismissed and Is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^