HHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiViSlON BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRE RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. HON’BLE SHR? SUN“. KUMAR $5NHA, J. Appe lam (Origi 1al applicant) Dilip Kumar Suryavanshi, aged abaui 24 yers, S/o 8hri Ramratan Suryavanshi, R/o Vii! Sambaipuri; PS Him, Tehsi! Takhatpur, Disit BHaspur (CG) VERSEJS Soti!a! Suryanvanshi, aged about 35 years, 8/0 Khamhan Suryavanshi, Occupation — Truck Driver, R/o Vill Simga, Biiaspur Road, Distt Raipur (CG) Present Address - Vii] Parsapaii, PS' Saragaon, Tah Janjgir, Dist? Janigir — Champa (CG) Sohanial Jain, S/o Nanaklai Jain, Tiuck Owner Rio Nagri, Distt Raipur (CG) Divisionai Manager, The Oriental ~ insurance Company Limited, in Front of High Court BiiaSpur (CG) £ Responcfems Origin‘iai Nan-applicants . i i ' Present : Shri Sushobhit Singh, counsel foi'ihe appeiiani. Shri Ashok Patii, counsel for respondent No.1. None for respondent No.2. Ms C‘nitra Shri§astava, counsel for respondent No3. ORDER (14th March, 2011) HIGH COURT OF C Misaiiippeai No.1183 of 2W4 Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 .of Motor Vehicles Act ‘ §‘ Appellant/ Claimant Dilip Kumar Suryavanshi is 'seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 10‘“ Additional Mater Accideni Ozaims Tribunal, Biiaspur (for short ‘the Tribunai’) 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,96,200/—, maimed by the apé‘e'ilant/ciaimant, by filing a ciaim petition unde; Seciien 166 of ihe Motor Vehicies Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 30042002, the Tribunal awarded a tetal sum of Rs.2,43,000/- as compensation'to the claimant aiong 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 Dilip Kumar Suryavanshi sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident on 30.04.2002; the aocident occurred'due to rash and negiigent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration N‘o.MP—23/D-8283; as theabove offending vehicle Truck on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental insurance Company Limited, and the insurance Company‘could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. 4) viTie award dated 93.08.2004, passed in Claim Case No.59i2004. 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 The following order of the Court was passed by ijeev Gupta, C.J. @ Rs.1,44,G00/— towards loss in the future v earning capacity; Rs.50,00G/— towards nan-pecuniary damages; Rs.24,000f— towards loss of inccme during the period of treatment; Rs.20,000f— towards pain and suffering; Rei5,QOO/— towards medicai expenses, attendant and speciai diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a totai sum of' Rs.2,43!000f- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries l sustained by him in the motor accident. 1%; Shri Sushobhit Singh, learned counsel for the appellant :vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,43,00G/— only, though the appeliantlolaimant gsustained multiple serious injuries including-fracturesin the motor accident. I 6} Ms Chitra Shriavastava, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental insurance Company Limited, on the other hand ‘ supported the aWard and contended that the compensation or“ Rs.2,43,000/— awarded by the Tribunai is iust and proper 1 compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Shi Ashok Patti, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sotiial a l Suryavanshi, the driver of the offending vehicle Truck also supported ‘ the award. 8) ln a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts l Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. lt shouid neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. \ , /c /V:‘ 9) Now, we shalt examine as to whether the sompensatien of Rs.2,43,000/— awarded by the Trébunal is ,just and proper eompensation in the facts and circumstances of the present‘caee. ’50) Ciaimani Diiip Kumar Suryavanehi was aged about 24years cn ihe date 0f the accident. He was a Carpenter by eccupation. He Ias carrying on his occupaticm as Carpenter at a smaii viiiage $ambaipuri in the Teheii of Takha’cpur. The biiis and vouchers eredeiced by the ciaimant’tdwards purchase of medicines were to the extent of Rs.3,000/— cniy. 11) " Thefcompeneatton 0f Rs.2,43,GOO/- awarded by the Tribunat when examined in the context of the aboxre mentioned broad teetures of the case, in our opinion, does not call for any enhancement in this appeai. 12) The appeal fiied by the appetiant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore,‘ is tiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. fi 3) No order as to costs. #// M _ Sd/- I Sdl- ' i Sunil Kumar Sinhyg/ Chief Jusu'cet y“ y , Judge ’ / t V 777,,