^ \\ p?. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-applicants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 41 of2006 Sujit Bose, s/o S.C. Bos^, aged about 33 years, r/o Raja Talab Raipur, Tah. & distt. Raipur C.G. VERSUS 1 Domesh Kumar @ Ghumeshwer Sahu, s/o Heera Lal Sahu, aged about 21 yrs, r/o Shanti Nagar, P.S. Civil Line, Raipur, distt. Raipur C.G. 2 Smt. Kanta Jaggi w/o Gulshan Jaggi, r/o D-113, Taigore Nagar, Raipur, Tah. & distt. Raipur C.G. 3 The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. By Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur C.G. Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri A.L. Singraul, counsel for the appellant. Shri A.K. Athaley, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (29th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. AppellanVclaimant Sujit Bose is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, .^isr'..-.,,^ -..,^. "'"^. \ Misc. Appeal (C) No.41/2006 Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.02.2006, passed in Claim Case No.38/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.22,50,000/- 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 18.03.2005, the Tribunal awardeda total sum of Rs.68,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Car bearing registration No.C.G.04/B/5501 liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the insurer of the offending vehicle Car has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.28,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- for attendant; and Rs.5,000/- for special diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.68,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.68,000/- @ 9% per annum Misc. Appeal (C) No.41/2006 ^ from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.68,000/- only though the appellanVclaimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extentof 27%. 7) Shri A.K. Athaley, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Car, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.68,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 8) Claimant Sujit Bose was aged about 33 years on the date of the accident. He was a building material supplier by occupation. The bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal were to the extent of Rs.27,967.60 and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.28,000/- towards medical expenses. It is neither the case of the claimant nor it has been so proved that the claimant on account of the injuries and fracture sustained by him in the motor accident has been rendered unfit to pursue his occupation as building material supplier. In fact, it has come in the statement of the claimant that inspite of the fracture sustained by him inthe motor accidenthe is continuing with Ns earlier occupation of building material supplier. 9) The compensation of Rs.68,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the abovementioned broad features ^ Misc. Appeal (C) No.41/2006 of the case, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 10) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded'by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensatiqn is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge nimmi