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 Misc. Appeal (0 No.1429 of 2008 Pappu Yadav @ Ramprasad, s/o Visheshar Yadav, aged about 45 years, r/o village Koni, in front of petrol pump, District Bilaspur VERSUS Respondents 1 Premlal, s/o Nathuram Gond, aged Non-applicants about 40 years, r/o Khera, Jairamnagar, PS Masturi, District Bilaspur CG (Driver of vehicle Truck bearing No.CG 12 / - ZC-0586) 2 Suresh Kumar Vadhwani, s/o Manumal, aged about 44 years, r/o Nishant Potri form, Kasturba Nagar Sindhi colony, Bilaspur District Bilaspur CG (Owner of vehicle Truck bearing No.CG 12 / ZC- 0586) 3 Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, RB Traders, First Floor Stadium Road, TP Nagar, Korba CG (Insurer of vehicle Truck bearing No.CG 12 / ZC-0586) 4 Arun Kumar Rathi, s/o Tikamdas Ji Rathi, R/o Shri Nagar Gadhiyari (Rajshri Tee Company) Raipur District Raipur CG 5 Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madina Building Kachahari Chowk, Raipur CG Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Mptor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Rajesh Jain, counsel for the appellant. ^,3'aafc-<^\ 'C.-.N&l "f ^ "F?'J MAC.No. 1429 of 2008 ^\ Shri Hemant Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counsel for respondent No.5. ORDER (13th October, 2011) The following order of 'the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/Claimant Pappu Yadav @ Ramprasad is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 16.07.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 174/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,65,000/-, 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 10.09.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.20,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Rajesh Jain, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.20,500/- only, though the appellant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 5% as is evident from the disability certificate filed by the appellant in this appeal. 4) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the MAC.No. 1429 of 2008 ^ ^ offending vehicle Truck on the other hand supported the awarded and contended that the compensation of Rs.20,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) Shri Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the owner of the offending vehicle Truck and Shri Sourabh Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.5, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the other vehicle Swaraj Mazda, which was being driven by the claimant at the time of the accident also supported the award. 6) Claimant Pappu Yadav @ Ramprasad was aged about 45 years on the date of the accident. He was a driver by occupation. It is true that the claimant sustained some fracture in his right ankle, but no disability certificate was produced by the claimant before the Tribunal. The disability certificate produced for the first time by the claimant in this appeal was issued on 03.10.2008, i.e. after more than two years of the alleged accident which took place on 10.09.2006. This certificate further reveals that the alleged disability suffered by the claimant on account of the injuries and the fracture was to the extent of 5% only and that too was of temporary nature. 7) The compensation of Rs.20,500/- 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 cail for any enhancement in this appeal. n;n MAC.No. 1429 of 2008 .a/ padj^a 8) The appeal filed by the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 9) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N. K. Agarwal Judge ^^