HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 770 of 2006 ADpellant : Dharmendra Kumar Banchor, aged Claimant about 30 years,S/o Shri Bishesar LalSarthi, R/o Mathpurena, Nearthe Halka Talab, Raipur, Police Station - Tikrapara, PO Sundarnagar, Riapur District - Raipur (CG) "i VERSUS 1 Respondents Non-claimants 1. Lalchand Chandel, S/o Gangadhar Chandel, aged about 28 years, R/o Phuljhar, PO & Police-Station - Somni, District - Rajnandgaon (CG) 2. SB Sharma, S/o RS Sharma, R/o Infront of Housing Board Colony, Borsi, Durg District - Durg (CG) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kutehery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur District—Raipur (CG) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE IVIOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988. Present: Shri Shivendu PandyS, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta, courtsel for respondent No.3. ORDER rth (07tnApril,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. 'h Appellant/ Claimant Dharmendra Kumar Banchor is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 12 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.09.2006, passed in Claim Case No.52/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,50,000/- 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 22.03.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.2,36.760/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% 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 Dharmendra Kumar Banchor sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 40%; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle dumper bearing registration No.CG-07-ZC/3801; as the above offending vehicle dumper 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 have been sustained by the claimant in the .^T5^ //~^'\ 'v. !^vy motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.1,87,680/- towards loss in the future earning capacity; Rs.11,480/- towards medical expenses; Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.8,000/- for special diet, atfendant and conveyance; Rs.4,600/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.10.000/- towards future medical expenses. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.2,36,760/-, 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.2,36.760/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 5) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,36,760/- only, whereas the claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 40%. 6) Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.2,36,760/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should ft:;-'^ "•,. ;>. s s ^B^ '^""^;"' ^^'y' .,< 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. 8) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,36,760/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 9) Claimant Dharmendra Kumar Banchor was aged about 30 years on the date of the accident. He was Coolie by occupation. The bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal were to the extent of Rs.11,480/- and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.11,480/- towards medical expenses. 10) The compensation of Rs.2,36,760/- awarded by the Tribunal 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. 11) 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. 12) No order as to costs. , ) ; Sd/- ChiefJustice w- R.N. Ch.andi'aSk'ar r-fo-' padma