HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 587 of 2006 ISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988. ' Present: Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, counsel for the appellant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3.“ ORDER (08m Aprll, 2011) Appellant . Sunder Lal Gehare, s/o abo’ut 45 Claimant Ram Gahare, aged abo’ut yrs. Occupation Driver, R/o Lal Bahadur district‘ Shastri Ward, Bhatapara, ’ Raipur. G VERSUS Respondents 1. Ram Lal Yadav, s/o Shri Chhatial Mohaba Non—applicants Yadav, aged 27 yrs, R/o behind Bazar, Tatibandh, Gurudwara, Raipur district Raipur ZC (Driver of vehicle No.C.G.O4 0928) 2. Baivinder Singh S/o Shri Surjeet Singh, R/o Mohaba Bazar, Tatibandh, P.S. Amanaka, Raipur district Raipur ZC (Owner of vehicle No.C.G.04 0928) C Company 3. National Insurance Company Divisional Limited, through the Divisional Moudha Manager, G.E. Road, P.S. Para,Raipur ZC (insurer of vehicle No.C.G.O4 0928) The following order of the Court was passed by - Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/ claimant Sunder Lal Gehare is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 13‘“ Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 27.10.2005, passed in Claim Case No.99/2004. 2) As against the compensation 'of Rs.8,50,000/— claimedby the appellant/ claimant by nling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 14.07.2004‘ the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,20,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 7% 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 that claimant Sunder Lal Gehare sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 14.07.2004; the injuries and fractures sustained by the claimant in the motor accident resulted in permanent disability of his right leg; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.04-ZC-0928; as the above offending vehicle Truck, on the date of the accident was insured with the National 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. 2$ 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recofded 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 ciaimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Iump-sum of Rs.1,20,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by shim in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,20,000/— @ 7% 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 submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1 ,20,000/— only‘ though the appellant/claimant on account of the injuries and fractures sustained by him in the motor accident and the resultant permanent disability has been rendered unfit to pursue his occupation as driver. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts‘and circumstances of the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Couits/Tribunais 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. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,20,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper ' compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present Case. 10) Claimant Sunder Lal Gehare on the date of the accident was aged about 45 years. He was driver by occupation. He sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident is established from the evidence of AW2 Dr. G.S.Bachhu. It is a matter of common knowledge that substantial amount is required to be spent on account of the treatment of fractures. The claimant on account of the fractures could not have attended his duties as driver for a period of about 4—6 months resulting in monitory loss to him. The claimant must have suffered physically and mentally on account of the injuries and-fractures sustained by him in the motor accident. 11) The compensation of Rs.1,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is somewhat on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 2Q 12) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further aWard of Rs.30,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.1,20,000/— awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the preSent case. 13) The appeal filed by the sappellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, thereforevis allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.30,000/~ inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.1 ,20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14) Respondent No.3 the National insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.30,000/— before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- ‘ Sdl- Rangnath Chandrakar Chief Justice Judge subbu