HIGHCOURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAIV1: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Misc. Appeal No. 734 of 2006 Baleshwar Das Vaishnav S/o Bhagwan Das Vaishnav, aged about 40 years, Constable 419, Police Line, Raipur (CG) VERSUS 1. Dan Sai Sahu, S/o Ram Bharos Sahu, R/o Ashok Nagar, Raipur (CG) 2. The Oriental Insurance Company through Divisional Officer, in front of High Court, Bilaspur (CG) 3 Shobhit Ram Sahu, S/o Arun Kumar Sahu, R/o Harmudi, PS Navagarh, District Durg (CG) IVIISC.APPEALUNDERSECTION 173 (2) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri Rahul Birtharey, counsel for the appellant. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (31stMarch,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by ^t Rajeev Gupta, C.J. AppellanV claimant Baleshwar Das Vaishnavis seeking enhancement 6f the compensation awarded by the Fourth o^ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No.49/2005. • 2) As against the compensation of Rs.13,26,657/- 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 05.09.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.4,36,4990/- ascompensation along with interest @ 6% 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 Baleshwar Das Vaishnav sustaihed multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 05.09.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No.C.G.04-ZA-0316; as the above offending vehicle Minibus, on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental 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 haive been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have beenspent on treatment, awarded Rs.2,70,000/- towards loss in the future pinoqs S|eunqui/s)jno3 eq) Aq pepjeME eq 0} uoifBsusdLuoo eqi 'lBLll Sl }UBlJOdLUI Sl leqM 'sseo Luiep luspiooe JOIOLU e u| (z •IUBLUIBIO eqt 0} uoiiesuadujoo se -/66fr'9E'fr'sy ^O LUnS 9AISS93X9 pSpJBME SBq |eunqui eq} IEL|} payiuiqns 'pueL) jeqto ey} uo 'pe^iLun AuedLUOQ souejnsui |e)uauo 94) Z'ON }uepuodsaj JQJ [esunoo peujesi 'eujjeLig ejpueiieiis WS (9 •%OfrP }U9)xs aq) o) Aiiiiqesip ^usueLujad ui Ouifinsej tueppoe JO}OLU eqi u! sajn(OBJ.t Buipnpui seunfui snoues 9|di}|nLu peuiBfsns lueujieio flue||sdde eqi q6not|) A|UO -/66^'9£'^'sy p uoiiesuadLuoo MO| Suipjeme ui pejjs seq leunqui eq} ieq} psn6je AiiueiueqeA tue||edde eqt joj [ssunoo peujeai 'AejeqiJig ini^ey uqs (S •tusujAed |En)oe j.o eiep eq) ]|it uoii^ed luieio eqi jo 6u]]y jo a)Ep sq} LUOJ^ tunuue jed %9 @ -/66fr'9£'fr'syp uoitesusdLUOo p lunoLue 8Aoqe sq} uo isejeiui jo lueujAed paiosjip jeiiijn^ |eunqyi eqi -tuapiooe JO}OLU eL|} ui uiiq ^q pauiefsns seunfui eqi JQ^ )UELUIBP aL|) 0( uoitesuedujoo SE -/66t''9£'fr'sy ^o Luns |Eioi e pepjeme 'snqf 'ieunqui eqi •eoueAeAuoo JOj -/000'fr'sy pue '(eip leioeds JQJ -/OOO'S'sy ^uepueue .JQJ -/QOO'9'sy :6uu8yns pue uied ajn^ SPJEMO} -/000'Sl'sy :ej!| p uoiiepsdxe ^o SSQ| spjBMO} -/OOO'Ol'sy 'ssitiueiue S.o sso| spjEMOi -/OOO'SI-'sy :6uu9yns pue uied SPJBMOI -/OOO'OL'sy :s3SU8dxe leoipauj spjBMOi -/66t»'ZO>l'sy :iueppoe JOIOLU eq» ui tueLuiep sqt Aq peuietsns sejnpe^ pue seunfui e^ LUOJ^ Buiiinsej Aiiiiqesip lueuBLUjed p lunoooe uo Atpedeo euiujee be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nora Bonanza. 8) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of' Rs.4,36.499/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensationin the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 9) Claimant Baleshwar Das Vaishnav was aged about 40 years on the date of the accident. • He was serving as Police Constable. As he was in Government Service, all the expenses incurred by him on his treatment were liable to be reimbursed by the State Government, so also the future expenses, if any, that, would be incurred by the claimant on his treatment. The claimant in para 10 of his evidence before the Tribunal has admitted that he is getting the same salary after the accident which he was getting prior to the accident. He further admitted that the injury sustaiped by him in the motor acddent has not adversely affected his income in any manner. There is no material before us to establish that the claimant was denied any promotion on account ofthe injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 10) The compensation of Rs.4,36,499/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in thecontext of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 11) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the rf CTWS'SE appellanV claimant for enhancement ofthe compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. Chief Justice Sd/- Citan; Jiidge nimmi