HEQH CQURT OF CHHA'E'TI$GARH AT EILASFUR BENCH (IQRAWE HGWEL $H§i @JEEV G$§Tik C.J. HGN’3iE $HR§ R§a¥§£¥3§1§T§ SHM‘éVzJ'‘Ré‘IKJARJ _ .............. Misc Appgai No. 753 o? 23M In eiiam Rajesh Kumar Baniare, S/c Shfi ‘ imam Suéhafam Bamare, Aggd abcut 19 vers, R/c Deomhurd, Bilaspur, BisMct : u Biiasgaw', ChhéitiSg/arh KJERSUS espondents m1 agiphCants Ganesh @ Jagdish ShrWas (Drivey cf PiCk-U§ Ma‘1Ei‘mi'a kHG \Az- h 4/1] I U1 D—u4vz. n ’! S/o Shri Ragaram $hnvas Aged abcui 22 years, Ric Chingrajpara, EHaspur, Chhattisgafh 2 Bami Sidar, S/o Shri Puraniai'Sidar, Rio Cle ishwar {3% Mia, Mair? road, Toma, Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner a? Vehic!e Pick-Lg.) Mahendra NGWCG- 1 0123-0492) 3 Divi$§onai, Managar, The Oriental msurance Ca Ltd Naar High Court Btiaspur Cnhaiitsgam (nsuranue Germany Vehlcie Dick-up Mahandra \lo CG 10iZb 0492} ‘ Nohar Prasad Kurr'e {Driver & Owner a? veh§c§e Aurcrickshaw No.CG-‘:G/’ZA— O47'i) 3/0 Shri Jethuram Kurre, Ric ViHage Seigarzga, {Sarangpun}; Tehsi! : Mungeii, Distr‘m Biiaspur, Chhaitisgarh Branch Manager, The New India msurarxse Ca Ltd, Rajendra Nagar Chowk Biiaspur, ‘Chhai‘tisgarh (lnsurar‘c Camparry vehicle Autorlckshaw No CG 1OIZA 0471 ) j. «MAMMNMN/Ag wk M E ? EIVISION e Misceilaneous ArmeaE under Section 173 of Motar Vehicie Act Present : Shri Sanjay K Agrawai; Shri Sudeep Agrawai and Shri .Aditya Sharma, counsei for the appeiiant. Shri Lokesh Singh, counsei on behah’ of Shri RS Mamas, counsei for respondents No.1 and 2. $hri Sudhir Agrawai, counsei for respondent No.3 & 5. Ms Maya ‘Jerma, counsel for respondent No.4. OREER (5th Qetehey, 2MQ§ The foEEowing order of the Court was passed by K Rejeev Gupta; C.J. Appeliant Rajes‘h Kumar Banjare is seeking enhancement of 5 the compensation awardedrby thefFourth Additionai Motor Accident l Claims Tribunai, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vio‘e award dated 29.04.2004. passed in Claim Case No.30/2OG3. 2:: As against the compensation of Rs.4,14,500/—, claimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition'under Section 166 ‘ of the Motor Vehicies Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the Imotor accident on 24.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,87,800/— as compensation atong with interest @, 9% per an‘num from the date of the fiiing of the ciaim petition tiii the date of actuai payment. 3} I The Tribunai, on a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it heid that claimant Rajesh .Kumar Banjare sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on \‘.\ Vs. l ; 1 1 (!A ® 24.05.20Q2; ’Ehe accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the cffending vehicie Mahindra Pick-up'Van bearing registraticm No.CG-10!ZB—0492; as the above cffending vehicEe Mahmdm Pick-up Van an the date of the cccident was insured with the Orientai Insurance Company Limited; and the insurance Company could not-estabiished any breach of the poiicy conditiens, u -the insurance Campany was liable t0 pay compensation m the claimant. a} As t-he {esnondents have not med any apnea! against the award the above fmdmgs recorded by the Tnbur‘at have now attained frnatity. 5) The Tribune} considering the number and nature ofthe‘ injuries proved to have been sustained by the ciaimant in the motor accident; and the amount proved to have been spent on his treatment. awarded Rs.1_,42,800!- towards loss of future earning capacity; Rs.25,000/— towards pain and suffering; Rs.15,00.0l— towards medical expenses and Rs.5;009/— towards attendant. The Tribunai,‘ thus, awarded a total. sum of Rs.1,8?,8GG/— as compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal further directed- payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,87,800/— @ 9% per annum from the date of the fiiing of the iciaim petition till thedate of actual payment. 6) l Learned counsel for the appeiiant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,87,80()i— only, as on account of the injuries and fractures sustained by the claimant in l i imiwtt #9 t“ ihe meter accident and the resuEtant permanent disability; the emire careey of the ciaimant was spoiled, $7) Shfi Sudhir Agrawai, learned caunsei for respondent No.3 the Orientai insurance Company; the insurer of Mahindra Pick-up Van and iearned counsel for respondeni No.5 the New India insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the ‘award and contended that the compensation'of Rs.t,87,800/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Ms Maya Verma, teamed counsel for respondent No.4 and Shri Lokesh Singh; teamed counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 also supported the award. 9) in a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts l Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 10) Nowi we shall examine as to whetherthe compensation of Rs.1,87,800/- awarded by the Tribunai is just and proper compensatton in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11} Claimant Rajesh Kumar Banjare was aged about ts years on the date of the accident. He was a student of 12‘” standard. He claimed that white studying, he was earning Rs.1,6OQ/- per month r from different sources. lt lsestahltshed that the ciaimant sustained muitipie serious injuries including fractu’res‘in the motor accident. it ‘b @ is a matter of common knowiedge thew substantiai amount is i required to be sgent on the treatment of fractures. 12} The compensation of Rsfi ,87,800!— awarded by the Tribunai when examined in ihe context of the above mentioned broad featuree of the case, tn our opinion; is somewhat on the lower etde and o’eserves to be enhanced to some extent. J3) Considering alt the retevent aepecte of the matter, we are 0t the opinion that further award of Rs.21,£300;’- inoiusive of interest c‘omponen‘teon the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rsi ,87;8OOI- awarded by the Tribunai as just a and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the 0&Se. t4) The appeat fiied by the appeliant/ctaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is aliowed in part. The oiaimant is awarded further sum of Rs.2’i ,DOOX- inciusive of interest component in addition to the sum of Rs.1 ,8?,80Gl— awarded by the Tribunai. 15} Respondent No.3 the Orientai insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the totai sum of Rs.2t ,000/- before the concerning Ciaims Tribunai. 16) No order as to costs. Sdl- Chief‘ Justice l ‘wx r_ 'fi i x r