^ Ki^SW?^ 2.} 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. 563 of Appellant Claimant Manish Shrivas, aged about 20 years, S/o Bisahu, R/o Paunsari, PS Bilha, District Bilaspur (CG) Respondents 1 Satikram Hemne, S/o Shrimant Hemne, Aged 45 years, R/o Putena, Raipur, PS Telebandha, Dist Raipur 2 Bhaskar Rao Khandare, Aged 25 years, S/o Bhuraji Khandare, R/o Gomti Industries Laxmi Nagar, Raipur PS Tikrapara, Raipur and Thakkar Chamber, GE Road, Power House Bhilai, Dist Durg (CG) 3 The National Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, No.11, Bhiiai, Distt Durg (CG) 4 M/s Sai Transport, R/o Chhawani Chowk, Bhilai, Dist Durg (CG) Miscellaneous Appeal u/S 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 1988 Present: Shri A.C. Sahu, iearned counsei for the appellant. Shri Govind Dewangan, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (07th January, 2011) '•<%>':sassy'' 7> The foltowing order of the Cburt was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant - Manish Shrivas is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 21.02.2006, passed in Claim Case No.130/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,84,000/- 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 11.02.2004, the Triburtal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,35,900/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of flling 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 Manish Shrivas sustained multiple injuries in the motor accident on 11.02.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Metador bearing registration No. C.G.04- ZB/1710; as the aboveoffending vehicle Metador 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. 4) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the y-^^._-,.= ^INj motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment awarded Rs.86,400/- towards loss in the future earning capacity; Rs.25,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages; Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards future treatment; Rs.2,000/- towards conveyance; Rs.1,500/- towards attendant; Rs.1,000/- towards special diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,35,900/- 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.1 ,35,900/- @ 6% per annum from the date of fiting of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri A.C. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred inawarding iow compensation of Rs.1,35,900/- only. 6) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive amount of Rs.1,35,900/- as compensation to the claimant. 7) Shn Govind Dewangan, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 also supported the award. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the CourtsfTribunats should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ^^ of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nora Bonanza. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,35,900/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Though appellant Manish Shrivas claimed that he was 20 years of age, in the initial medieal papers he was shown to be aged about 16 years only. The claimant, admittedly, did not produoe any disability certificate before the Tribunal. The claimant though pleaded that a sum of Rs.%,000/- was spent on his treatment, the bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal could establish the medical expenses to the extent of Rs.9,669/- only. 11) The compensation of Rs.1,35,900/- awarded by the Trtbunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 12) The appeal filed by the appetlanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. 13) Np order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice ^-.i ^n8nattaSe subbu