^•^ 1 HlGHCOURtOFCHHATTISGARHAtBlt.ASPUR ..•DMSIONBENCH-1.':-'-'..'.^::''-:-^^ CORAM: HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA,GJ.& HON'BLESHRIRANGNATHGI-IAN13RAKAR,J. Misc.ADQieal N0.493^£2QjQ6^ ^ ARDellant : AnilMeshramagedab6ut35years Claimant S/oShriSreecharanMeshram.R/o Nettru Ward No.12., Tah. Dongargarti, Distf Rajnanidgaoni VERSUS i ( ' ': . ..., ••. Resobndents 1. Jasbjr Singh, aged about 38 years, Non-appliCants S/o ShriSurendra Singh, R/@;Tata (Driver) TelcoTownCrossRoadK-2/4,PO > Telco; Jamshedpur, Distt Singhbhumi, Jharkhand (Owner) 2. JS Nirsan Singh, S/6 Jagat Sihgh, ABC Transport, Ring Road, Bhanupuri, Raipur(CG) (Insurer) 3. TheNew|ndialnsuranGeCo.t-td.,; Through Branch Manager, Brarieh Office.Kamptee Line, Rajnanagaon; MISC. APPEALUNDERSECTION 173 OF THEMOTQR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri Anand Shukla, counsel for the appellant. NcinefbrrespondentsNo. 1 and2. ^; Shri DashrathGupta, counsel for respondent N6A-— -, ORDER (29th March,2011) ..•••'^•:?^ The following order of the Court was passed by^^ RajeevGupta, C^). :: I AppellanV claimant Anil Meshram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims' Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.12.2005, passed in Claim CaseNo. 156/2001. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.21,00,000/- 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 25.05.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,70,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 9% per. annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.1,23,000/- towards medical expenses and conveyance; Rs.15,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.2,000/- towards special diet and attendant; and Rs.20,000/- towards permanent disability . The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,70,000/- 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.1,70,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 1 ^iiu'''i['l'"aa>s».:'-" .<aaat ^ / 'l' ^^^•'"'"^•^ s '^. "s;"y '^.^.......^-^' 4) Shri Anand Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,70,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent, of 25%. 5) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,',70,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 6) In a motor accident daim 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. 7) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,70,000/—awardedby the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Claimant Anil Meshram was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident. He was running an Auto Service Centre at Dongargarh, district Rajnandgaon. The bills and vouchers towards medical expenses produced by the claimant before the Tribunal were to the extent of Rs.1,19,523/-, whereas for ^^i-Si.S;^. sa.. • .,/-?^^'. V's$Ssa' \;^^s.>r-" "; conveyance it was to the tune of Rs.3,721/- and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.1,23,0007- towards medical expenses and conveyance. 9) The compensation of Rs.1,70,0007- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is just and proper compensation and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 10) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, thereforei fails and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice nimmi Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge