dlllKI j A Md&l^t^^^^^^ £ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATUR.E AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) SINGLEi MISC.APPEAL N0. 29-?_ QE 2005 leRir> •c- PPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS : ,v~M ®y wy /%y A' ,w ;•' ><s' .••' /// w > 3. ^/ Smt. Vimla D/o ofShri Shivpal Ram Kushwahaiand Wife of Geeta Prasad Kushwaha, aged about 27 years, Occupation- Agriculture, Resident of Village & Post-Karji, PQljc^. Statjon- Darima, Tahsil AmbikapUr, District Surguja ) C.,G.). l VERSUS Rashid BusService, Through: The Proprietor, Rashid iBus Service, Ambikapur, Proprfetor Abdul Rashid Son of Shri Gulam Rasool, Village-Jarhagarh, Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.). (OWNER OF VEHICLE) The United Insurance Company Limited, Ambikapur, Disfnct Surguja (C.G.). (INSURER) Rajkumar Son of Unknown, Driver of Vehicle, aged about 35 years, Resident of Village-Turna, Tahsil-Ambikapur, DiStrict Surguja (C.G.). fDRIVER') i t; 's- MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLEACT. 1988 FOR ENHANGEMENT OFAWARD :^ s-'- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC^APPEAL No. 733 OF ; Smt. Vimta Claimant Rashid Bus Service and others. APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHiCLE ACT. 19S8 (Sinale Bench: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Aaarwai. J.) : Ms. Pushpa Dwivedi, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 23rd day of October,2010) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appeiiant for seeking enhancement of compensation'against the award dated 28-03-2005 passed by Second Add!. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, Distrlct Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No:19/2002 whereby and whereynder an amount of Rs. 1500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded as compensation in favour of the appellant and as against the respondents, from the date of filing of the ciaim petitioR till its actual payment. 2. Brief facts of the case according to appeitant are that, on 12-09-2001, the appeltant while going from Vjllage Karji to Ambikapur by Bus (Rashid Bus Service) bearing registration No. M.P. 27/4577 met with an accident due to rash and negligent driving by Vhe driver of the offending vehlcle (Bus) and pureuant to said accident. the appellanf sustalned grievous injuries. 3. The appellant preferred an application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, ciaiming compensation to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- for the injurjes sustained by her in the said accident. 4. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence !ed, material placed and submissions made by the patties, awarded total amount of Rs. 1 500/- as compensation along with interest 6% per annum from the date of application, in favour of the appellant as against respondents and the said amount is directed to be paid within two months. If the amount of compensation is not paid wjthin the period stipulated, the amount shall carry 8% interest per annum. 5. Leamed counsel for the appeliant would submit that altiiough the Doctor has not been examined but looking to the fact that the appellanf sustained grievous injury, and amount awarded by the Tribunal is shockingly on lower side, this appeal may be allowed and the compensation may be suitably enhanced. 6. 1 have heard the leamed counsel appearing for the parties and perused the records ofthe Tribunal. 7. The Supreme Court in case of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thlmpal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC-189, observed in para 6 as under: "6. After hearing iearned counsel for the respondent- claimant who made an attempt to support the order of the High Court. We find that there was no justification for the High Court to rely on the disability certificate issued by Dr. Sudhakar Reddy and enhance the compensation by treating the injury as permanent disability to be 45 per cent. The High Court committed gross error in overiookingthe fact that Dr. Sudhakar Reddy's medical certificate was rejected by the Tribunal for non- examination of that doctor. The Tribunal has determined the physical disability at 15 per cent on the basis of the deposition of Dr. K.M. Mitra and awarded a just and fair compensation. The High Court erred in disturbing tte same and enhancing the compensation. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order and restore the award of the Claims Tribunal. The respondent-claimant is allowed to withdraw the amount of compensation awarded* by the Tribunal, if it has not already been withdrawn." 8. The Supreme Court in a recent dictum in case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singhand another, reported in •9SBO 34} Ul UOjteSUSdLUOO p lusujsoueyue jo^ souepiAa 9M}uetsqns se uoi^ejspisuoo oiui us>|ei sq ueo jou souspiAS ui. eiqissiuipe jsqiieu sje ssieoyiijso 'syodsj Ainfuj eqt Buinssi jopoa 94} io uoiieuiLuexs 10 soussqe 9i|} ui 'peonpojd seteoyiyeo 'syodsj Ajnlui sqi 'ssseo pajjsjej aAoqe eiji jo eiQip eqi p MeiA u| 'sso| tueunssj S\Q SAOjd 0} pue luepiooe SL|} ui peuieisns ^nfui eL|i eAojd 0} jopoa euiujexs }OU pl.p lUOpSIM UMO J91) ui }ueiU!B|o sq} 'Aipeuiiupv '01. ,,'ese3 841 ui uoiiesusdtuoo sq} 10 IUSLUSSOSSB joi souspiAS SAiiueisqns se uoitejepisuoo oiui us>jei eq uea jou eouapiA3 ui eiqissjLupe jgqijsu 31 eieoyiijso 34} Buinssi jopoa sqi y> uogeuiiuexe ^o soussqe eqt ui jeunqui sqi ejojsq psonpojd eieoyipeo eqi '(ejdns) jatpoue pue yfiu/g MAifpn^ 'A nfey sefie jewn')f ifsafey pue (e^dns) Xppay fednsiiij, -d 'A oj.ys 'd'V P ssseo 04} ui ynoo xedy eq} p eioip ps}onb OAoqe eifl jo MSIA u] •g,, :jspun se 9 ejed ui ppq SAoqe PBJJS^SJ ssseo syi uiynoo suisjdns P eioip 34} uodn SOUBIISJ s}i Suioeid '600Z 'MS-IB^ jsl.e ps^ep jspjo spiAjaiffoue y nties edfues 'SA nyes jeiun^ deepa/d p aseo ui ynoo yBjH siq} jo Ljousg UOISIAIQ v •6 ,,'suis isjy sqt jo^ pssiej sq 0} psffliujsd eq louueo 'uoiuido jno u; 'siues eqi 'uoseoiidde ou seq sjoef xe 'uoiuido jno ui 'iioiym py uoiiesusdiuoo S.USIU^OAA sifl ys /i!i!qeoi|ddB SL|} (4 pjeBsj ui pesiej ussq BuiAeq UORUSIUOO Aue io soussqe u| •seiijed sifl Aq pjooaj uo iifBnojq S|BUSIBLU 94} uo pspesoojd 'ejo^sjsitt 'ijnoo L|B!H eq} OS|B se [eunqui 341 'ynoo 4611-1 sq} jo |eunqui 8L|t sjo^sq pssiej ussq Jeqiie peq sn ejo^sq pesiEj suoi}usiuoo 04} ieqi jesdde iou ssop USAS i| •eieoyiyso e qons enssi 0} }ue}aduioo SBM 94 jeqisqm 0} se UMOU)) pu os|e si i| •UMOU)) iou si esjMjsqio jo py uogesusduioo S,U81U>|JO(W 841 p SUOISIAOjd Slfl jo siseq s^t uo p8}B|no|eo SBM %Q9 ie Aiiiiqesip 94} j^qieqAA 'eouepiAe ui siqissiiupe iou SSM 11 'ussiuiq psuiiuexe eteoyivso ®L|} 40 joijtne 041 sssjun -psuituexs ussq }ou peq sieoyivso pies e^tjo joqine sqi •u/nou>|4ou si eoe|d >|oo} iUQpiooe 34} jsye sjeeA 0/14 penssi SBA steoijgjao B t^ons 'siseq }Bqm UQ 'tue||9dde 94} psieefl leijdsoq sqt jo uosBjng JIAJO ®4ljeqieyM 0} se UMOU>| iou si }| 'sjesAoAq jsye psuieiqo SBAA sseo s!4i ui uoiissnb ui sieoyitieo eqi • i.1.,, : i. [, ejed ui suoitEAjasqo BUI O||OI 3L<} y}j M9!A aLUBS 94} patejstiej '90£QOS Z (800Z) 11. In a motor accident claim case, as per Section 1 68 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, what is important is that the compensatiori to be awarded bythe Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bounty nor charity. 12. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, l do not flnd any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. \ 13. The appeai filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation is therefore liabie to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Kvr ^ .."