Hon'ble Mr. Justice R.N. Chandrakar. Mukesh Yadav, aged 12 years (Minor) s/o. Ramcharitra Yadav, Minor through natural juardian, father Ramcharitra Yadav, r/o. Viliage Devada, P.S. ^omani, District Rajnandgaon (CG). Versus 1. Ashok s/o. Binayak Maratha r/o. village & Post Chandola,P.S. Pachur; District Aurangabad (Maharashtra) at present resident of On Dot Air Express Nitish Ashok Sahu, Oid Samrat Taikies, near Police Station Badi, Dattabadi, Nagpur (Maharasthra). 2. On Dot Air Express, Nitish Ashok Sah, Old Samrat Talkies, near Police Station Badi, Dattabadi, Nagpur, District Nagpur 3. Poiicy Issuing Officer, the New India Insurance Company Limited, 307 Narayan, behind Vijay Talkies Laxmj road.Pune (Maharashtra) through Branch Manager, The New !ndia tnsurance Company Limited, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaon (CG). Appea! under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act 'resent: Shri Rakesh Sahu, counselforthe appellant. Shri Raj Awasthy, counsel for respondent No.3. (Passedon 13-4-2011) AppeilanVciaimant Mukesh Yadav is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short the 'Tribunal') vide award dated 19-03-2007, passed in Claim Case No. 128 of 2005. As against the compensation of Rs.3,16,000/- ciaimed by the appeiianVclaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the 3. 6. -2- Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accjdent on 15-4-2005, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.1,78,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum for She date offiiing ofthe daim petition tiii the date ofactuai payment. Shri Rakesh Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribuna! has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- only though the appellanfclaimant sustained serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. On the other hand, Shri Raj Awasthy, leamed counsei appearing for respondent No.3 - The New india insurance Company Limited, contended that the Tribuna! has awarded excesslve sum of Rs.1,78.000/- as compensation to the ciaimant. ! have hsard iearned counse! for the parties, perused the impugned award and record ofthe Tribunai. In a motor accident ciaim case, what is importani is that compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should nesther be a meager amount of compensation nor a Bonanza. Now I shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and cireumstances ofthe present case. Appellant/claimant Mukesh Yadav aged about 12 years on the date of accident v/as working as labourer in "Dhaba" and was earning Rs.50/- per day. The unfortunate accident wherein the ciaimant claims to have sustained injuries and fractures, took piace in the year 2005. AppellanVclaimant Mukesh Yadav (AW/1) has stated in his statement that he was earning Rs.50/- per day by working as labourer in Dhaba. 10. 12. He has aiso stated in his statement that Sonu is the owner of the aforesaid Dhaba, but he has not been examined in this case. After going through the record, it is clear that Doctor V.S. Baghei has been examlned in this case as medica! witness and has issued djsability certificate (Ex.P/13) which is not proper as the same should be issued by the Medical Board and the Doctor V.S. Baghel, who has issued disability certificate, is neither a member nor chair-person of the iVIedical Board. Therefore, the disability certificate issued by Doctor V.S. iaghel is not proper and the same cannot be considered in this case. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.40,000/- towards medlcal expenses, specia! diet and conveyance; Rs. 14,400,'- towards loss of earning for 16 months; Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.54,000/- towards economic loss on account of permanent disability and Rs.50,000/- towards uneconomic loss due to permanent disability and the Tribuna! has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,78,000/- as compensation to the appellant/claimant. The compensation of Rs.1,78,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad feaiures ofthe case, in my opinion, cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case. 1 d,o not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation, Accordingly, the appeal fiied by the appellanVclaimant is liabie to be dismissed and Is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs . '•'' j Rangnath Chandrakar Judge K