HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 1385 of 2004 Appellant Claimant Shri Mangal Singh, s/o Jethu Ram Yadav aged about 32 years R/o Village Gopalpur P.S. Pali, distt. Korba C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1. Shri Tiharudas Panika s/oSukrit Non-applicants Das, aged about 23 years, r/o Village Rangola, P.S. Pali, distt. Korba C.G. 2. Bisahuram Jaiswal, s/o Jhaat Ram, r/o village Chainpur, Hardibazar, Distt. Korba C.G. 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, 68, Indira Commercial Complex, Transport Complex, Korba C.G. By Branch Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Rajendra Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur C.G. MEhflORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT Present: Shri Sudhir Kashyap, counsel for the appellant. Shri Dasarath Gupta and Shri Sanjay Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER rth (27TnApril,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. yrf:^"ase .^^ ~\ ^j i •••&. 'sl]i"^ :i'J y "i- Appellant/ Claimant Mangal Singh is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 09.09.2004, passed in Claim Case No.11/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.4,81,500/- claimed by the appellanV 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 23.09.2000, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,76,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% 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 Mangal Singh sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident on 23.09.2000; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tipper bearing registration No. M.P. 26/D/4623; as the above offending vehicle Tipper on the date of the accident was insured with the United India 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) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. •^ '^ .^ ^s .^ ''taii;""' 5) 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.1,35,000/- towards loss in the future earning capacity; Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.15,000/- towards loss in the amenities of life; Rs.10,000/- towards permanent disability; Rs.3,000/- towards attendant; and Rs.3,000/- towards special diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,76,000/- 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.1,76,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date offiling ofthe claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 6) Shri Sudheer Kashyap, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in -awarding low compensation of Rs.1,76,000/- only, though the appellanV claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resutting in permanent disability to the extent of40%. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta and Shri Sanjay Gupta,, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the United Ihdia Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be'termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 8) 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. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,76,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Claimant Mangal Singh was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident. He was a driver by occupation. The evidence of AW3 Dr. V. Khetrapal establishes that claimant Mangal Singh sustained fracture of his knee in the motor accident. It is true that Dr. V. Khetrapal has certified the permanent disability resulting from the above fracture to the extent of 40%. 11) The apex Court while considering the distinction between the permanent disability of one of the limbs and the permanent disability vis-a-vis the whole body in the case of Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar and Another reported in 2011 (1) SCC 343 observed in paras 24 and 25 as under: "24. In this case, the Tribunal aeted on the disability certificate, but the High Court had reservations about its acceptability as it found that the injured had been treat&d in the Government Hospital in Delhi whereas the disability certificate was issued by a District Hospital in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The reason given by the High Court for rejection may not be sound for two reasons. Firstly, though the accident occurred in Delhi and the injured claimant was treated in a Delhi hospital after the accident, as he hailed from Chirori Mandi in the neighbouring district of Ghaziabad in Uttar Pradesh, situated on the outskirts of Delhi, he might have continued the treatment in the place where he resided. Secondly, the certificate has been issued by the Chief Medical Officer, Ghaziabad, on the assessment made by the Medical Board which also consisted of an orthopaedic surgeon. We are therefore of the view that the High Court ought not to have rejected the said disability certificate. 25. The Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the permanent disability of the injured claimant was 45% and the loss of his future earning capacity was also 45%. The Tribunal overlooked the fact that the disability certificate referred to 45% disability with reference to the left lower limb and not in regard to the entire body. The said extent of permanent disability of the limb could not be considered to be the functional disability of the body nor could it be assumed to result in a corresponding extent of loss of earning capacity, as the disability would not have prevented him from carrying on his avocation as a cheese vendor, though it might impede in his smooth functioning. Normally, the absence of clear and sufficient evidence would have necessitated remand of. the case for further evidence on this aspect. However, instead of remanding the matter for a finding on this issue, at this distance of time after nearly two decades, on the facts and circumstances, to do complete justice, we propose to assess the permanent functional disability of the body as 25% and the loss of future earning capacity as 20%." 12. The Apex Court in the above quoted case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) directed enhancement of the compensation by Rs.20,000/- considering the' loss of the future earning capacity as 20%, though the disability certificate certified the permanent disability to the extent of 45°/o. In the above case, the Tribunalhad awarded compensation of Rs.94,700/-. Thus, the total compensation including the enhancement made by the Apex Court wasRs.94,700/- + Rs.20,000/- = Rs.1,14.700/-. 13. The compensation of Rs.1 ,76,500/- awarded by the Tribunal in the present case when examined in the context of the above quoted dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar (supra) and the fact that the claimant suffered a simple fracture of his knee in the motor accident, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 14. As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed qnd is hereby dismissed. 15. No order as to costs. I li Sunil KumarSinha sd/- ] i Judge Chlef Justice jPadma