^•- 1<- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc.ADDeal (0 No. 28 of 2006 Appellant/ : Natwar Lal, S/o Devji 54 years, R/o Claimant Palace Road, Jagdalpur, Tehsil Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar Respondents Non-applicants VERSUS 1. Nokarao, S/o B Raju, 27 years, R/o Maharani Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt Bastar 2. Smt Sweety Jain 34 years, W/o Rikhabchand Jain, R/o near Sanjay Bazar, Jagdatpur, Distt Bastar 3. The Oriental Insurance Company, Main Road, Sadar Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt Bastar MISC. APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri Prafull Bharat, Shri Santosh Bharat and Shri Keshav Dewangan, counsel forthe appellant. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (18th March, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. AppellanV claimant Natwar Lal is seeking enhancement of .• the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor ^:.'^ '^^^ v^.... ''^..--^' n Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.05.2006, passed in Claim Case No.114/2004. • 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,98,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the' motor accident on 06.12.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.3,52,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Prafull Bharat, Shri Santosh Bharat and Shri Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,52,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 4) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive sum of Rs.3,52,000/- as compensation to the claimant. 5) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should bejust andproper compensation in the facts and circumstances •:"^ '^ :iy;"^:.-' of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nora Bonanza. 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 7) Claimant Natwar Lal was aged about 54-55 years on the date of the accident. hle was dealing in Cement Business. The^ unfortunate accident wherein the claimant claims to have sustained injuries and fractures took place in the year 2003. The total income of the claimant in the assessment year 2003-2004 i.e. relevant for the year of the accident was only Rs.97,340/-, whereas his income shownin theassessment year 2005-2006 i.e. after one year of the accident was Rs.1,02,175/-. Thus, it is apparent that the injuries and fractures sustained by the daimant in the motor accident have not adversely affected the future earning capacity of the claimant at all. The bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal in regard to medical expenses were to the extent of Rs. 1,67,712/- and the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.1,77,352/- towards medical expenses; pain and suffering; and conveyance. 8) The compensation of Rs.3,52,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. •^^^ y.<:^ ^ ^ / ^' 2^ 9) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimantis liable^ to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. subbu Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge