•@ ..^ F^/ BEFORE THE HQN'BLEHIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR MISC. APPEAL (C| N0 "°&^/ 200< APPELLANT l.s?-"* ^•^•^Sty vwf^ w """ iAA^1-'" p(8 ' .....•••"^' RESPONDENTS : 1 ^-' Nirasan Bai, W/o Shriram Sende, aged about 40 years, R/o Sector- 4, Qtr. No.-6/D, P.S. Bhatti Road No.5, Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg (C.G.) ... Claimant VBRS US Surendra Kumar Sahu, S/o Dashrath Sahu, aged about 41 years, R/o Bahalpur, Post Chhatarpur, Presently at Shailendra Nagar, Qtr.NO. A-l, House of Engineer Amif Singh, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.) ... Driver ofthe Vehicle Amit Kumar Singh, S/o Shri Prakash Singh, aged about 34 years, R/o Shailendra Nagar, Qtr. N0. A-l, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur (C.G.) ....Owner ofthe Vehicle Divisional Manager, General Insurance IFCO TOKIO Insurance Company Ltd., Regd. Office : 34- Nehru Palace, New Delhi - 110019, Through Divisional Office, Manager - The IFCO TOKIO Insurance Co. Ltd., Shop No. 345-347-3, Floor Lalganga, Shopping Complex, Raipur (C.G.) ....Insurer .*•» MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 Claim before the Tribunal. Rs. 16,90,000/- ZE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAWI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (0 No. 648 of 2009 Appellant Claimant Nirasan Bai, w/oShriram Sende, aged about 40 years, r/o Sector - 4, Qtr. No. 6/D, P.S. Bhatti Road No.5, Bhilai Nagar, distt. Durg C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1. Surendra Kumar Sahu, s/o Dashrath Sahu, agead about 41 years, r/o Bahalpur, post Chhatarpur, presently at Shailendra Nagar, Qtr. No.A-1, House of EngineerAmit Singh, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur C.G. Driver of the vehicle 2. Amit Kumar Singh, s/o Shri Prakash Singh, aged about 34 years, r/o Shailendra Nagar, Qtr. No. A-1, P.S. Tikrapara, Raipur, C.G. Owner of the vehicle 3. Divisional Manager, General Insurance IFCO TOKIO Insurance Company Ltd., regd. Office : 34- Nehru Palace, New Delhi - 110019, through Divisional Office, Manager, the IFCO TOKIO Insurance Co. Ltd., shop No. 345-347-3, Floor Lalganga, Shopping Complex, Raipur C.G. Insurer ApDeal under Section j73^of the lUlotor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri P.R. Patankar, counsel for the appellant. Shri Vikrant Singh, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (21st July, 2011) :-^... The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/claimant Nirasan Bai is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for shori: 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.09.2008, passed in Claim Case No.195/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.16,90,000/- 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 accident on 31.07.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,54,975/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuat payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entireevidence led before it held the Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley bearing registration Nos.C.G.04/DA-1320 and C.G.04/DA-1329 liable to •pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the insurer of the offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has 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 amount proved to have been spent on treatment awarded Rs.83,130/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment of about 15 months; Rs.26,165/- towards •^^i^. medical expenses; Rs.25,000/- towards loss of amenities in life; Rs.10,680/- for attendant; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.3,000/- for conveyance; and Rs.2,000/- for special diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,54,975/- as compensation to theclaimant 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.1,54.975/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri P.R. Patankar, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,54,975/- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident resulting in disability to the extent of41%. 7) Shri Vikrant Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Ifco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited, insurer ofthe offending vehicle Tractor-Trolley, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,54,975/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrantenhancement 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. -^^.^^=^—..•..•:-•.•—-•-^-^-•^-^^^g.^Sff^^eKa!' ffl M n 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,54.975/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe presentcase. 10) Claimant Nirasan Bai was aged about 40 years on the date of the accident. She was working as helper in the Railways posted at Raipur. The claimant being a government servant was entitled for reimbursement of entire medical expenses incurred by her on her treatment. The Tribunal, even then has awarded Rs.26,165/- towards medical expenses. The claimant has categorically admitted that even after the accident she was getting the same salary which she was getting prior to the accident. Thus, it is apparent that the injuries and fractures sustained by the claimant in the motor accident have not at all adversely affected the future earning capacity of the claimant. 11) The compensation of Rs.1,54,975/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, 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 appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJusfiee Sd/- RangnathChandrakar Judge