^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATT1SGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C)No. 548 of 2009 Appellant : Budhdu Singh Son of Bishun Singh, CSaimant Caste Gond, Aged about 42 years, Resident of viilage Ganeshpur, Police Station Ramanujnagar, Tahsil Surguja, Distt. Surguja (CG). Versus Respondents :. 1. Prakash Chandra Sharma son of Main Prasad Sharma, aged about 24 years, occupation Driver, Resident of village Barbaspur, Police Station Ramanujnagar, Tahsii Surajpur, District Surguja (CG). 2. MohammadAlim son of Mohammad Ayyub, aged about 36 years, owner of Bus, Neeiam Bust No. UGY 8233, resident of Kharsiya Naka Ambikapur, Police Station and Tahsil Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). (Owner). 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limjted, Branch Officer, Sadar Road, Near StateBank of India Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG). (Insurer). MEMO OF APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 (Slnale Bench: Hon'bie Mr. N.K. Aaarwai. J.) Present Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla with Shri O.P. Yadav, Advocates forthe appellant. Noneforthe respondents. 1. 2. ORDER (Passed on 22nd day of April, 2009) Learned counsel forthe appeiiant is heard on admission. The instant appeal has been directed against the award dated 24.12.2008, passed by the Ilnd Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai (FTC), Surajpur, District Surguja, in claim case No. 27/2003, whereby an amount of Rs. 5000/- has been awarded to the appeiiant. \ 3. Shri Shukla submits that the amount awarded by the Tribunal is very meager amount looking to the medical treatment, nutrition diet and financial Joss to the appellant. He further prays for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 4. After considering the submissions of counsei for the appeliant and after perusal of the records and amount awarded by the Tribunal,! do not flnd any reason to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunai. As per the award, nothing has been proved by the appeliant before the Tribunal except that the appeilantwas outdoorpatient. 5. in a motor accident daim case, as per Sectlon 168 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunai shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstance of each case. Jt is neither a bounty nor charity. 6. The amount, awarded by the Tribunal is just, proper and needs no interference. 7. The appeai filed by the appellanf for enhancement of the compensation has therefore no merit the same is iiabie to be and is accordingly dismigsed summarily. V Sahu T<.^^ra' 3udge