HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.A. (C) No. 799 of 2007 Appellant : Smt. Shanti Bai Singhore, W/o Bhuwan Lal Singhore, Occupation - House wife, aged about 55 years, R/o Rohini Puram, Raipur Tahsil & District - Raipur (C.G.) Versus Respondents 1. Jayant Singhore, S/o B.L. Singhore, aged about 30 years, Occupation - vehicle of Driver & Vehicle of Owner) Tahsil & District - Raipur (C.G.) 2. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through : Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) (Appeal underSection 173 ofthe MotorVehiclesAct, 1994) (SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Rangnath Chandrakar) Appearance: Mr. S.K. Guha, counsel forthe appellant. None for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 26th April, 2011) 1. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Raipur, (for short, "the Tribunal"), vide award dated 16-3- 2007 passed in claim caseNo. 68/2005. 2. As against the compensation of Rs. 13,00,000/-, claimed .by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 13.05.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of \ Rs. 50,740/- as compensation to the claimant along with interest @ .?'?s=8^ -'..,=E'* '"l... '-i*—siae=*'^ 6. 7.5% from the date of filing of claim petition till the date of actual payment. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny ofthe entire evidence led before it held that the claimant sustained injuries in the motor accident on 13-5-2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Maruti Van bearing No. CG-04-B-0521; as the above offendingvehicle on the date of the accident was insured with theNew India Insurance Co. Ltd. and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. The Tribunal assessed the income ofthe injured at Rs. 15,000/- per annum on the basis of the notional income prescribed in the Second Schedule under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act. Shri S.K. Guha, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal haserred in not accepting the claimant's evidence about the income of the injured and in assessing her income at Rs.15,000/- per annum only; and in awarding low compensation of Rs. 50,740/- only though the''appellant/c!aimanf sustained multiple grievous injuries including fracture in the motor accident resulting into permanent disability. 1 have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award and record of the Tribunal. ^ 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that the compensation awarded by the Court/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the fact and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation nor a bonanza. 9. Now, 1 shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs. 50,740!- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstancesof the presentcase. 10. True, the claimant pleaded that she was earning Rs. 5000/- per month by doing switching and embroiderywork, no reliable and cogent evidence was addyced before the Tribunal to establish the income of the injured to that extent. In this context, no other person was examined before the Tribunal. In this state of evidence, 1 do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in discarding the claimant's evidence about the income of the deceased. 11. After going through the record, it is clear that Doctor G.S. Bachu has been examined in this case as medical witness who has issued disability certificate (Ex.P/23) after lapse of one year and three months, which is not proper as the same should be issued by the Medical Board and the Doctor G.S. Bachu, who has issued disability certificate, is neither a member nor a chair-person of the Medical Board. Therefore, the .disability certificate issued by Doctor G.S. Bachu is not proper and the same cannot be considered in this case. 12. The Tribunal has awarded Rs. 20.740/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 12,000/- towards loss of earning, Rs. 5000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.2000/- towards special diet, Rs. 13. 14. 1000/- towards conveyance and Rs. 10,000/- towards loss of working and the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 50,740/- as compensation to the appellanVclaimant.' The compensation of Rs. 50.740/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in my opinion, cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation. Accordingly, the appeat filed by the appellant/daimant is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. g^ R.N. Chandrakar Judge Raju/ vijay