^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DJV1SION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No.630 of 2011 Appellant ^» Respondents Ashok Kumar Takariya, son of Mukund Takariya, aged about 35 years, resident of House No.B-10, Road No.5, Ashish Nagar Risali, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Claimant) VERSUS Rooplal Yadav, son of Bhagwat Singh Yadav.'aged about 26 years, resident of Surdonagar, Thana Dondi, Tehsil Balod, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Driver) Mahendra Rathi, son of Manaklal Rathi, resident of Saja, Post Saja, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Owner) National Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Akash Ganga Complex, Supela, Bhilai, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Insurer) Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri SS Rajput, counsel for the appellant. ORDER (16th June,2011) ^^ ^N?^. The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) AppelIanVclaimant Ashok Kumar Takariya is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 7 Additional ' Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 21.02.2011, passed in Claim Case No.69/2009. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.6,00,000/-claimedby the appellant/ claimant byfiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15.12.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.75,000/- only as the appellanVclaimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident, resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 15%, 5) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals 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. ~n ^,. f^%^ tis 'li ^ ^^s^ K' bwN- fj 6) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Claimant Ashok Kumar Takariya was aged about 34 years on the date of the accident. He was in service in a private concern, namely, 'lndiana Hitech Flyex Bricks'. It is not even the claimant's case that on account of the injuries and fractures sustained by him in the motor accident, he has been rendered unfit to pursue any occupation. 8) The compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case and the recent dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 S.C.C.-343, we are satisfied, does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 9) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ) Sd/- ChiefJustice ^' Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu