HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA$PUR DEVISEON BENCH CC§R§§W i-IQN’ELE $HR§ RAJEEV GUW‘A, CJ, HGN’BLE SHRI $UNEL KUMAR $§N%A, J. Migc. Appea! N01 924 of 209$ Aiay Mangaikar, aged aboui 32 years, s/o Shri‘ Madhukar Mangaikar, r/o. House Na. 201, Anjani Niwasl Padumnagan P.O. Bhilai, district Durg CG. $ppe§§an§ Ciaimant VER$EJS Rgspondents Sanjiv Kumar aged about 22 years, s/o. Non-appiicants Shri Raj Kumar, r/o. Sharma Coiony, Vivekanand Nagar, Nandini Road Camp 2, PD. Bhiiai, di$trict Burg CG. (Driver of Matador No.M.P./24—C/1 392) 2 Sm‘t. Jamiia Begum, W/o $a£eem Rio Sharma Colony, Vivekanand Nagar Nandinr Road, Camp-2, P0. Bhnai: district Durg CG. 3 M/s Orientai Insurance Co, Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Maiviya Nagar, PO. & Disii. Durg CG. i‘v‘iiaseiianeous‘ Appeai under $ec€icm 173g Moior Véi‘iicieg Act Shri Amrito Das, counsei for the appeiiant. Shri SP. Sahu, counsei on behaif of Shri KN. Chaiurvedi, counsei for respondent No.3. ORDER (65m March, 261 1) The foiiowing order of ihe Court was paseed by, RajeevGupta, CJ. m Appeilantf Ciaimant Ajay Mangalkar is seeking enhancement of fhe compensation awarded by the Seventh Additional Mofer Accident Claims Tribunal, Burg (for Sheri ‘the Tribune dated 22.03.2005, passed in Ciaim CaseN9J21/2002. 2) As against the compensation ef Rs.2?,58,500f-, ciaimed by the appellanilciaimant, by filing a oiaim petition under Seciicn 168 of the Meier Vehicles Aci, for the injuries sustained by him in the i’) vide award N, meter accident on 14.01 .2002, the Tribunai awarded a totai sum of Rs.6,22,882/~ as compensation aiong with interest @ 7% per ting of the claim petition tiil the date of annum from the date of ti actual payment. 3) I The Tribunai considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to havebeen sustained by the claimant in the motor ‘ accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, ards toss in the future earning capacity on account of the amputation of his right leg due to the injuries and tractores sustained in the motor accident; Rs.99,882/— towards medical expenses; Rs.50,000.f- towards pain and suffering; awarded Rs.3,43,400/— tow Rs.50,000/- towards expenses in future on attendant and conveyance; Rs.35,000/— towards attendant, speciai diet and conveyance; Rs.20,000f— towards artificiai iimb; and Rs.25,000/- i towards grievous injuries sustained by the ciaimant in the .motor accident. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a totai sum ot Rs.6,22,882/~ as compensation to the ciaimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunai further directed payment of . ‘ )t interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.6,22,882/— @ 7% per annum from the date of fmng of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Amriio Das, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently algued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.6,22,882f— only. 5) Shri S.Pi Sahu, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri KN. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental insurance Company Limited, on the other hand contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation of Rs.6,22,882f— to the claimant. 6) In a motor accident clam case what is important is that the i . compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the cas’ec it should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 7)’ Newfwe shall examine as to whether the compensatlon of Rs.6,22,882/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Claimant Ajay Mangalkar was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident. He was working as Supervisor in Singh Auto Servicing Centre, Bhanpuri, Raipur; Accordlng to the claimant, he was getting salary of Rs.4,800/- per month. The claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident leading to amputation of his right leg betow knee is established from the evidence of AW2 Dr. Urgaonkar. The claimant on account of the ampuiaiion of his right ieg sustained permanent disabilrty to the extent of 65% 9} The compensation of Rs 6 22 882l— awarded by the Tnbuna! when eVamined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case and the amount proved to have been spent by the cieimant on his treatment we are satisfied is just and proper {he facts and Circumstances cf the present case and dees not can for any enhancement in this appeal. 10) We, therefore, do nct find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeal fiied by the appeliant/ ciaimant for enhancement ”QmDehSaLiOn m i V l. of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed hereby dismissed. and is 12) ’ No order as to costs: V R» "jr Sd/_ §m~ Sunli w, Chief Jmce Kumar Sinha subbu w,¥\\i‘Judge Judge j H