f^ ^ i. j ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J ^^. Appellant Claimant Respondents Misc. Appeal (Cl No.709 of 2010 Jagari Bai, w/o Sukhram Madiya, aged about 35 years, village Toyar, Tahsil Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) VERSUS 1 Ramesh @ Babalu, s/o Man Singh Thakur, aged about 32 years, village Takraguda, Police Chowki, Bastar, Tahsil Jagdalpur (CG) 2 Dhiraj Kumar Jain, s/o BD Jain, aged 32 years, r/o Vrindavan Colony, Jagdalpur 3 Reliance General Insurance Reliance Centre 19, Valchand hliralal Margway Lord Estate Mumbai - 400 001 through Land Mark Insurance Shop No.15, Basement, Krishna Complex, Kachhery Chowk, Raipur (CG) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present : Shri Sushobhit Singh, counsel for the appellant. Shri SS Rajput and Ms Renu Singh, counsel for respondentNo.3. ORDER (18th October, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appelalnt/claimant Jagari Bai is seekingenhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident f=r/€S\ i^i^J ^•.^- M.A.C.No.709of2010 ^ Ciaims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.04.2010, passed in Claim Case No.453/2009. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,35,000/-, claimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accidenton 18.04.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,14,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% 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 Jagari Bai sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 18.04.2008; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist of the offending Platina Motorcycle bearing registration No.CG 17 E 9871; as the above offending Motorcycle on the date of the accident was insured with the Reliance General 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 insurer of the above offending Motorcycle has not filed any appeal against the impugned award challenging the above findings recorded by the Tribunal, the same now have attained finality. 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 fact that the claimant did not produce any bills and ^y'^: '% 'JI .^ M.A.C.No.709of2010 vouchers about the expenditure on treatment, awarded Rs.1,08.000/- towards loss in the future earning capacity; Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; and Rs.1,000/- for conveyance and special diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,14,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,14,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant placing reliance on the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of D Sampath Vs United India Insurance Company Limited and others (passed on 13 September, 2011) vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,14,000/- only, though the appellanVclaimant suffered permanent disability to the extent of 65%. 7) Shri SS Rajput and Ms Renu Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Reliance General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending Motorcycle on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,14,000/- 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 shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the M.A.C.No.709of2010 ^; 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.1,14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Claimant Jagari Bai was aged about 35-40 years on the date of the accident. She was a vegetable vendor. Though the claimant pleaded that substantial amount was spent on her treatment, no bills and vouchers were produced before the Tribunal to establish the extent of expenditure on her treatment. It appears that since the claimant was treated in a Government Hospital, she was not required to spend any amount on her treatment. 11) The compensation of Rs.1,14,000/- awarded by the Tribunal, when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case and the dictum of the Apex Couri: in the case of Raj Kumar Vs Ajay Kumar And Another reported in (2011) 1 SCC 343, we are satisfied is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 12) 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 and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge ^^- M