HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA,C.J. & HON'BLESHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. ADpeal (Cl No. 108 of 2011 Appellant/ Claimant Respondents Non-applicants 'L. Kartik Yadav, S/o Jugaru Yadav, aged about 24 years, R/o Village Pausara, Police Station Koni, Tahsil & district Bilaspur(CG) VERSUS 1. Abdul Jahir Khan, S/o Abdul Hafisz, aged about 29 years, R/o Shanichari Bazar, Ratanpur, Thana - Ratanpur, DistrictBilaspur (CG) 2. Ramphal Singh Thakur, S/o Keshar Singh Thakur, R/o Village - Pausara Tahsil & district Bilaspur (CG) 3. Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliance General Branch Office, Chhattisgarh Complex, Bus' Stand, In front of Geeta Lodge, Shop No. O.C.-2 Bilaspur Distt Bilaspur (CG) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988. Present: Shri Sameer Singh, counsel for the appellant. ORDER (16th March, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,C.J. .^—^ .. --""^^^^ i, ^" ^.--> Shri Sameer Singh, learnedcounsel forthe appellant is^ heard on I.A. No.01/2011, an application for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of leamed counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No.01/2011, therefore, is allowedand the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Sameer Singh,learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) AppellanV claimant Kartik Yadav is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 24.07.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 10/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.7,95,000/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant byfiling a claim petition underSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 05.12.2008, the Tribunalawardeda total sum of Rs.2,69,340/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment.. 7) 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 ":;^ 1 treatment, awarded Rs.2,14,200/- towards permanent disability to the extent of 35%; Rs.45,140/- towards medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- for attendant and special diet; and Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of. Rs.2,69,340/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 8) Shri Sameer Singh, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,69,340/- only though the appellanV claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 9) 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. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,69,340/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 11) Claimant Kartik Yadav was aged about 24 years on the date of the accident. At the relevant time he was working as helper in a Bus.. He claimed his income at Rs.4,500/- per month whereas the Tribunal assessed his income at Rs.3,OOQ/- per month and Rs.36,000/- per annum. The bills and vouchers produced by the claimant beforethe Tribunal were to the extent s' .%..s.. ^!.y;^^^ n-^:. - !1 lf:ft.®^IJ 'Y' """ ••. J...I' nimmi of Rs.45,140/- and the Tribunal has awarded the same sum of Rs.45,140/- towards medical expenses. 12) The compensation of Rs.2,69,340/- when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 13) The appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed summarily. r Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge