HIGH COURTOF CHHATTISGARH AT^ILASPUR D.B.: HON'BLE MRJUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HON'BLE MRJUSTICE R.L. JHANWAR APPELLANT RESPONDENTS T~ M.AfCt N0.379/2010 Ganesh Karmkar, S/o Late Surendra Karmkar, aged about 50 years, R/o Near Komick Restaurant, Pachpedj Naka, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Versus 1 Abdul Hakim, S/o Abdul Hamid R/o Behind Kallu Garage, Moudhapara, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.CG.13/0/1253) 2 Mobin Asraf, S/o Shri Mazbuddin, aged about 30 years, R/o Hudco Quarter - 12/15, Bayren Bazar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G) (Registered owner of vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.CG 13/C/1253) 3 The National Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Near Raj Talkies, G.E. Road, Raipur, District Rajpur (C.G.) (Insurer of vehicle Bolero bearing registration No.C.G.13/0/1253) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICl.ES ACT Appearance: Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (07.04.2010) M.AfCl N0.379/2010 The following order of the Court was passedby Sunil Kumar Sinha. *I. Heard. AppellanVclaimant - Ganesh Karmkar has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded in Claim Case No.29/2009 by the Fourteenth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur on 16.12.2009. The appellant/claimant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs.1,65,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, which took place on 27.05.2007. The appellanVdaimant contended that he received fractures on 4th and 5th metatarsus bone of left leg, due to which, he also suffered permanent disability. He produced Disability Certificate (Ex.P/24) which shows the permanent disability to the extent of 14%. The certificate was issued by Dr.G.S. Bachhu (AW-2). The Tribunal did not rely on the Disability Certificate and held that the appellant did not suffer permanent disability in the motor accident. Holding the present to be a case of grievous injury, the Tribunal awarded Rs.7500/- as the amount incurred in the treatment. It further awarded Rs.2000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs.500/- for Attendant, Rs.500/- for transport expenditure and Rs.1000/- for special diet. The Tribunal also considered that the appellant must have suffered loss of earning and a sum of Rs.10,000/- was awarded on this account. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum ofRs.21,500/- to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Insurance Company was held responsible to deposit the said amount. Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the Tribunal erred in law in holding that the appellant could not establish that he suffered ^ %^../ (C } N0.379/2010 -^ permanent disabiljty on account of the said accident. He submits that a low compensation has been awarded to the appellant. We gather from the impugned award that for an accident which took place on 27.05.2007, the Disability Certificate (Ex.P/24) was obtained on 05.12.2009. Dr.G.S. Bachhu (AW-2) deposed that the appellant met him on 05.12.2009 and he issued the said certificate on the basis of X-Ray report dated 11.02.2009. He admitted that he had never treated the appellant. The X-Ray report dated 11.02.2009 shows the fractures of 4th and 5th metatarsus bone of left leg. The Disability Certificate (Ex.-P/24) was not issued bythe Medical Board as Dr. G.S. Bachhu has issued the said certificate in his personal capacity. The certificate was issued on account of reduced movement of knees. It is on these grounds, the Tribunat did not rely on the said certiricate and held that the appellant could not estabtish that he suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. We do not find any infirmity in the said finding recorded by the Claims Tribunal, therefore, the arguments advanced in this regard cannot be sustained. So far as the amount of compensation is concerned, we flnd that the appellant had produced bills of Rs.4812/-, whereas, the Tribunal awarded Rs.7500/- on account of the expenses incurred in the treatment. The Tribunal has also awarded Rs.2000/- for pain and sufferings, Rs. 500/- for attendant, Rs.500/- for transport expenditure and Rs.1000/- for special diet. Besides the above, Rs.10,000/- was also awarded as loss of income to the appellant. The law in relation to awarding compensation in accident cases js well settled. Under the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunals are under obligation to award "just and reasonable" compensation to the genuine daimants after determining the 5T<%-. ^;^-t^. •;.. ^ J Ks s^' w^-^ M.A (C } N0.379/2010 ^5 factum of accident as also the factum of rash and negligent act on the part of driver of the offendjng vehicle. It has to be borne in mind that the compensation is not expected to be wjndfall for the victim. The statutory provisions clearly communicate that the compensation must be just and it cannot be a bonanza. The courts and tribunals have a duty to weigh the various factors and quantify the amount of compensation, which should be just and which would depend upon the particular facts and cjrcumstances, and attending peculiar or special features, if any. Every method or mode adopted for assessing compensation has to be considered in the background of "just" compensation which is the pivotal consideration and requires judicious approach. The expression "just" denotes equitabSlity, fairness, reasonableness and non-arbitrariness. Ptease see State of Harvana and another -Vs- Jasblr Kaur and others f2003) 7 SCC 484 and Helen C. Rebello (Mrs.) and others - vs- Maharashira State Road Transport Corporation and another. f1999) 1 SCC 90. In view of the above, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to the appellant by the Claims Tribunal. The appeal has no merit. The same is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge shyna [