^ <^A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 238 of 2008 Sunil Arora s/o Jagjiwan Sing, age 19 yrs. R/o New Khursipar, Sangan Chowk, Bhilai, Tah & Distt. Durg. VERSUS 1 Arun Kumar Sharma s/o Babulal Sharma, r/o Kundara Para, charoda Basti, distt. Durg. 2 Smt. Najya Khan, w/o late Kutbuddin Khan, r/o Maudhapara, near Kachourmal Shop, Raipur. 3 Divisional Manager, the New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Office at R.D.A. Building, Cloth Market, G.E. Road, Raipur. Appeal under Section 173 of the n/lotor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the appellant. Shri Deepak Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (23rd June, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/claimant Sunil Arora is seeking enhancement of the Gompensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor ^y "^•'^^s^' Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 17.12.2007, passed in Claim Case No.62/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.16,95,000/- claimed by the appellanV 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 30.04.2007, the Tribunalawarded a total sum of Rs.3,36,659/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal ona close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that the claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture of his left hand in the motor accident on 30.04.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No. C.G.04/E-0804; as the above offending vehicle Minibus on the date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now 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 ^Ss"•19 2.^ treatment, awarded Rs. 1,73,658.87 towards medical expenses; Rs.96,000/- towards loss in the future earning capacity on accountofthe permanent disability in his left hand; Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering; loss of amenities of life and future prospects; Rs. 10,0007- towards special diet; Rs.4,000/- towards conveyance; and Rs.3,000/- towards attendant. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.3,36,658.87, which was rounded off to Rs.3,36,659/-, as compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.3,36,659/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.3,36,659/- only, though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of50%. 7) Shri Deepak Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Minibus on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.3,36,659/- to the claimant. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances '^^^^ BR zt of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.3,36,659/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Claimant Sunil Arora was aged about 19 years on the date of the accident. He was preparing for PMT examination after passing 12th standard. There is noconvincing and reliable evidence available on record for establishing that the claimant was having any definite and regular income on the date of the accident. The bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal were to the extent of Rs.1,73,658.87 and the Tribunal has awarded whole of the amount towards medical expenses. 11) The compensation of Rs.3,36,659/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features 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. 12) 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 compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. subbu Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge