HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Misc. Appeal (C) No. 123 of2007 Noharlal Tikele son of Shri Buddhram Tikele, aged about 43 years, resident of village Khadafari, tahsil Lanji, district Balaghat M.P. VERSUS 1 Raju @ Chainlal Sahare son of Shri Tukaram Sahare, aged about 32 years, resident of village Khadafari, tahsil Lanji, district Balaghat M.P. (Driver of offending vehicle bearing no.C.G.-04/Z.C./1161) 2 Malkiyat Singh son Shri Dhan Singh, M/s. Maharashtra Bihar Roadways, Tatibandh, Raipur, (C.G.) (Owner of offending vehicle bearing no.C.G.-04/Z.C./1161) 3. The National Insurance Company Limited, through the Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited, Akashganga Premises, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil and district Durg C.G. ADDeal under SectionJ73 ofthe IVIotor Vehicle Act Present: Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri S.P. Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. ;-,&ii'^<> -iQ£S}, '•'^,. "•'^"" ^ '^ ORDER (23rd June, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. AppellanVclaimant Noharlal Tikele is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 12 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.07.2006, passed in Claim Case No.71/2005. 2). As against the compensation of Rs.7,47,000/- claimed by the appellanVclaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 29.03.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/- 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 Noharlal Tikele sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident on 29.03.2005; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Truck bearing registration No.C.G.04 ZC/1161; as the above offending vehicle Truck, on the date of the accident was insured with the National 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. -K^'' a'; 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the gward, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now 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 lump-sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.60,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri S.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.60,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 National Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle Truck, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 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. 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Claimant Noharlal Tikele was aged about 43 years on the date of the accident. The claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident is established from the evidence of AW4 Dr. V.S. Baghel. The claimant has categorically stated that he remained- under treatment in different hospitals for a period of more than one month. The claimant during the period of his treatment could not have performed the duties relating to his occupation resulting in monitory loss to him. 11) The compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 12) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest . component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. .•^.;, The claimant is awarded furthersum of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14) Respondent No.3 National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.20,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 15) No order as to costs. _._-— Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sd/- Chief Justice subbu