MK im "-^:: ^ ^ :^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIIONBENCH CQRAM: HON'BLESWRIRAJEEVGUPTA,CJ.& HON'BLESHRl RANGNATHCHANDRAKAR,J. Appellant CIaimant M.A.No. 908 of 2004 Januram S/o Chhedan Ram Sahy aged about 36 yeare, R/o. viHage Bagoud Tahsil Kurud, Distt. Dhamtari(C.G.) VERSUS Ganesh Prasad S/o Laxmi Narayan ChandrakaragedaboutSQyearsR/o village Tahsil Dhamtari (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited near Adarsh Bal Vidya Mandir Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari. IVIisc. Appeal under Section 173 of IVIotorVetiJclesAct ResDondents Present: Shri Vivek Rathore; eounse! for the appellant. Nbne for respondent No. 1 though served. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. '^•^-- ORDER ^th (29mSeptennber,2010^ The following order of the Court' was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Appellant JanuFam is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the AdditionaJ IVIotor Accident Clalms Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award datec! 31.03.2004, passed in,claimcaseNo.174/2003. ^.:^^" .--f 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,80,000/- claimed by theappellant/claimantbyfilingacla(mpetitionunderSectton166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him jn the motor accident on 18-05-2003, theTribunalawardedatotalsum of Rs.48,000/- as CQmpensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fjling of the claim petition tili the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny ofthe entire evidence ted before it held that claimant Januram sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 18.05.2003; the injuries and fractures sustained bythe claimant jn the motor accident resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 25%; the accident o^curred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist of the Motoreycle bearing registration NO.C.G./05/4544; as the above offending vehicle Motorcycle.on the date ofthe accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limjted and the Insurance Company coyid not establish any brea^h of the policy conditions, the Jnsurance Companywas iiableto pay compensation to the ciaimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal agajnst the award,the above flndings recorded by the Tribunal have now attajnedfjnality. 5) The Tribunal consjdering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the resultant permanent disability to the .^s^ ate;';:-I. ^j^'-^ ^-.: k •^^ extentof 25% andtheamount Q£ovedtohave been spentonthe treatment, awarded Rs.45,000/- towards loss pf future earning capacity; Rs.2,OOQ/- toward^ medieal expenses^ and Rs.1 ,QOO/- towards physical pain and mental suffering. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.48,000/- as compensation to the ctaimant for the injuries sustajned by him jn the motor accident, 6) Shri Vivek Rathore, leamed counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awardjng low compensation of Rs.48,000/- only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multipleserious injuriesinGludingfraclturesjnthemotor accident, resultjrig in permanent disability to the extent of 25% and on account of the injuries and fractures and the resultant permanent disabiljty, the claimant has been rendered unfit to pursue his occupation as Labour. 7) Shri Sudhir Agrawal; jearned counsel for respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensatjon of Rs.48,000/- awarded^ by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation inthefactsand ctrcumstancesofthepresentcase. 8) In a motor aecident 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. |lt should neither be a meager amount of compensatjon, nora Bonanza. ^ •-M v 9) Claimant Januram on the date of the accident was aged about 36 years. He pleadedthat he used to eamRs.1,800/- per ^ •.i':'".'. month as Labour. The evidence of AW2 Dr. Vinod Kumar Pandey establishes that the claimant sustained fracture of his left leg which resulted in iimping and permanent djsability to the extent of 25%. It a matter of common knowledge that substantial amount is required to spent onthe treatment offractures. 10) The compensation of Rs.48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in thecontext of the above mentjoned broad features ofthe case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lowerside and deserves to be enhanced sujtably. 11) Consjdering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.SO^OOO/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.48,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts artd eircumstancesofthepresentcase. —^t?--'-^--.-:< -. •..\-' . . 12) The appeal filed by the appeljant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore,'is allowed in part; The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.30,000/- jnclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in additionto the sum of Rs.48,000/-awarded by the Tribunal. ^^^ ^.: -3bu 13) Respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limjted is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of X Rs,30,000/-beforetheConcemingClaimsTribunal. 14) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice SdA ' r R.N. Chandrakar i Judge ^ ^ y7..