z" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-claimants Misc. Appeal (0 No. 863 of 2011 Lalita Devi, w/o Babulal Sao, aged about 36 years, r/o village Karpavand, tahsil Bakavand district Bastar C.G. VERSUS 1. Saheb Singh s/o Karm Singh Jat Punjabi, aged about 43 years, r/o near Pandari Gate P.S. Pandari (Mowa) Raipur.C.G. (Driver of the vehicle) 2. Anwar ali s/o Saiyyad Ali, aged about 38 years, r/o Royal House C/18, Sector 05, Shailendra Nagar, RaipurC.G. (Owner of the vehicle) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company L.imited, Branch Manager Main Road Jagdalpur, district Bastar C.G. Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri P.K. Tulsyan, counsel for the appellant. ORDER ;th (05tnDecember,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. MAC.No. 863 of 2011 •-^ ^ Shri P.K. Tulsyan, learned counsel for the 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 learned 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 allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri P.K. Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant/claimant Lalita Devi is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.04.2011, passed in Claim Case No.107/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs. 12,34,0007- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 09.05.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.27,448/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri P.K. Tulsyan, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.27,448/-only though the appellant/claimant ^ .^"^^ / € "'^ 1t§ 'S^3^S^ MAC.No. 863 of 2011 ^ v'; sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture in the motor accident. 8) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal should be just and propercompensation 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.27,448/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Claimant Lalita Devi was aged about 36 years on the date of the accident. The claimant was not'having any independent income of her own at the time of the accident. Though it is proved that the claimant sustained fracture of her little finger in the motor accident, the Tribunal found that the said fracture did not adversely affect the working/ efficiency of the entire body in any manner. The bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal in regard to the medical expenses were to the extent of Rs.2,448/- and the Tribunal has awarded this entire amount of Rs.2,448/- towards medical expenses while awarding lump-sum of Rs.25,000/- under other heads including pain and suffering. 11) The compensation of Rs.27,448/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the abovementioned broad features of the case and the fact that the claimant was not having any independent income of her own at the time of the accident, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and 'j^T^ /^%. "^ tsS^I ^s^"' 4 MAC.No. 863 of 2011 ^ v circumstances of the present case and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 12) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice ) t • Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge subbu ^'