EGH CGURT OF CRHQTTESGRRH A? $§LA$§ DWE$§0N BENG?§ ‘ Misc Amea: No. 7'52 m‘ 29M CGR’i-Wi: HQNggLE SHRI W£E§V GijP’E‘A, CJ. ‘ %-IQN’ LE $HRI RAN§NATH CHANDRAKJERJ Iinne§¥arai ‘wGiaimani Rani Bai, Wm Shri Pardesi Ram Sahu, Aged about 33 years, Rim vmage : Mohra, Tehsii & Districi Biiaspw; Chhattésgarh ' VERSUS Ganesh @‘Jagdish Shrivas, (Driver of Pick—up Mahendra No.CG-1 GEE-0492), Sfo Shri Raiamm Shrivas, Aged about 22 years, Rio Chingraipara, B%iaspur, Chhaitisgarh Banti-Sidar, Slo Shri PumnXa: Sidar, R10 ‘ C/o Bhwar Oi! Mm, Main mam Toma, Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh (Owner of Vehéc!e Pick-up Mahendra N0.CG- 1OJZB-O4g2) Divi5iona! Manager, ‘i‘he Orientai §nsurance Ce Lt-d.,‘ Near High Cgurt, Biiaspun Chhai€i§garm (insurance 11 Ccmpany Vehicée" P§c_k-up Mahendra' 1‘ No.06—10/ZB-O4Q2) Nohar Prasad Kurre, (Driver & Owner of veh§cie Autorickshaw Nc.CG-1Q/ZA— 0471} SIG Shyi Jethuram Kurre, Rio Viiiage Setganga, (Sarang’pur), Tehsii’: Mungeii, District : Biiaspur, I‘hka‘V \JI u Iau§3§m Av!»u Branch Managar, The New india Assurance Cc Lid, Raiendra Nagar Chowk: Biiaspur, Chhattisgarh (insurance Com§s3ny vehic!e Autorickshaw. Ne.CG-1 DEA-0471) Resncndents Non-appiiaants H L§R " @ Misce§£aneous Agipeal under Semion 1?3 3f Msier Vemcm Aét Pg'esent : 8m Sanjay K Agrawal, Shri Sudeep Agrawa! and Shri Aditya Sharma; counsei for the appeiiant. Shri Lokesh Singh. counseé on behaif 0f Shri RS Mamas; counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3 & 5. Me Maya Verma. counsel for‘responolent No.4. {/x I CREER (5m Gctober, EMU) The following order of the Court was passed by Rateev Gugta, CJ. Appellant Rani Bat is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Biiaepur (for short 'the Tribunai’) viole award dated 29.04.2004, passed in Claim Case No.29/2G03. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,73,400/-, claimed by the appella‘ntiolairnant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 24.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.’i,22,0001— as compensation atong with interest @ §% per l a‘nnum from the date of the fiting of the claim petition tlii the date of 1 i actuat payment. 3) The Tribunal on a ctose scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Rani "Bai sustained multipte serious , inturies including fractures in the motor accident on 24.05.2002; the ' wx i V‘ in? Wit lit 1 i ement occrred due to rash and negtigeni driving of the ffenng c u odi ec \ Mindrg Pick-u? Van bearing registration 0.0G-m/Z—GQ2 as the above offendng vhicie ahindre B4; i e M ic-up Vn en ihe date of the accident s insured wii the k a wa h nnial insurance Company Limited, n the insurance Compay e ad n uid not stbtished any breach of the policy conitio, th o ea dns e t tia wa ctatman. i) A As te fespondents have not filed. any appeai against the wrd, the above findings recorded by the Tribunai have now ttained finati. a ty The Tribul considering the number and naure f th 9 na t o e niuris proved to have been sustaied by the ctairnant in e motor e n th ccident; and the amount prove to have been spent on her i i 1 i towards medtoat expenses. The Tribunal, thus, t awarded a totat sum of Rs.t,22,000/- as compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal further diteoted payment of intetest on the above amount nerance Company s liabte to pay compensation to the i lt L h aa -«~_ . a d treatment, (awded Rs.96,0GOI- owards toss of future erning ar t a oaactty; Rs.25,000— twards pain and suffering; Rs.t,QOI—v p ! o O i pt compensation of Rs.t,22,000!— @ 9% per annum from the date a i {of the filing of the ciaim petition tili the date of aotuai payment. , Q i b) i i Learned counsei‘for the appeiiant submitted that the Tribunal i i ihas erred in awarding {tow compensation of Rs.t,22,000i— only, though the appeiiant/claimant sustained muitipie serious injuries i 2 inciuding fractures in the motor accident and on account-of the 1 § 1 1 Vhile ah E i m _# i 26/ {esuitant permanent disability, has been rendered un-fit to pursue hez' occupation as iabour. r‘ 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insufance Company, the insurer of Mahlndra Pick-up Van and learned counsel for respondent No.5 the New lndia Assurance-Company Limited on the other hand supported lhe uaward and contended that the compensation of Rsl’l ,22,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the faEts and cir‘cumstances of the present case. 8) Ms Maya Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.4 and Shrl Lckesh Slngh, learned counsel forrespondents No.1 and 2 also supported the award. 9) ln a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts l Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor t a bonanza. 10) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of ' t l t Rs.t,22,000!~ awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper J, compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. h it) Claimant Rani Bai was aged about 33 years on the date‘of t‘ne‘accident. ‘ She was labour by occupation. lt is estabiished from the evidence on record that she sustained available muitiple serious iniuries ’inciuding fractures in the motor accident. it is a matter of common knowledge that substantial amount is required to ‘ be spent on the treatment of fractures. 0n account of the fractures, @ K fhe i ciaimank eouid not have worked as labour for a period 9 (Pf 4—6 months. The ciaiman't must have suffered physicakbain and mental agony on account of the injuries and fractures sustained in :he motor accident. 12) The compensation of Rs.1 ,22,000/- awarded by the Tribunai when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is somewhat on the tower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 13) ‘ Considering aii the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.2t,000i— inciusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation wouid make the Compensation of Rs.1‘.22,000/— awarded 'by‘the Tribunal as just and proper comoensa’cion in the facts and circumstances of the l l toase. ‘14) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement .of the compensation, therefore, is aiiowed in part. The ciaimant is I awarded further sum of Rs.21 ,000/- inclusive of interest component tin addition to the sum of Rs.1 ,22,0()0l— awarded by the Tribunai. M5) Respondent No.3 the Orientai insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of Rs.21 ,OOO/— before the concerning Claims Tribunai. 18) No orderas to costs. ., ,i./" l ' dl .x‘ r i e .i‘ I Sdl- s _ Chief Justice} \ . l l I‘