HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1505 of 2009 Appellant Respondents Sampatlal s/o Shri Ramji, aged about 33 years, r/o village Machond, thana Gunderdehi, tahsil Gunderdehi, district Durg C.G. (Claimant) VERSUS Shri Shekh Amin s/o Shri Shekh Latif, r/o Gunderdehi, thana Gunderdehi, tahsil Gunderdehi, district Durg C.G. (Owner) The United India Insurance Company Limited, through Divisional Manager, first floor, Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, tahsil & district Raipur C.G. (Insurer) Misc. ADDeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri S.S. Rajput, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (29th September, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ~ Appellant/ claimant Sampatlal is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor Accident /^' '-. • ^v^ ^f %... ^r'.^ ^^m^.^'" M.A.C.No.1505 of 2009 Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 29.07.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 130/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.13,20,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant, byfiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 21.02.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.75,620/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of ttie award till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Maruti Van bearing registration No.C.G.07/ZD/7064, liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Maruti Van has not filed any appeal against the impugned award challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has 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 Rs.27,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.15,000/- for loss of amenities of life; Rs.9,000/- for attendant; Rs.9,000/- for special diet; Rs.7,619/- for medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; and Rs.3,000/- for conveyance. The Tribunal.thus, assessed the total compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.75,619/-, which •'^ •...;-i?;i. / .•;•' MAC.No. 1505 of 2009 lg) was rounded off to Rs.75,620/-. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.75,620/- 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.75,620/- @ 6% per annum from the date of passing of the award till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.75,620/- only, though the appellanV claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability. 7) Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.2, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending Maruti Van, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.75,620/- 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/Tribunal 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.75,620/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. ^^twt^^ ^^%. ^ ^,,^..^7r":<s^ % •w^^ s w ^ M.A.C.No.1505 of 2009 subbu 10) Claimant Sampatlal was 33 years of age on the date of the accident. He was a driver by occupation. The bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal in regard to the medical expenses were to the extent of Rs.7,619/- and the Tribunal has awarded this entire amount of Rs.7,619/- towards medical expenses. The Tribunal has awarded reasonable amount under all the permissible heads to the claimant. 11) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the evidence available on record, we are satisfied that the compensation of Rs.75,620/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and 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 appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation fails and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. — R.N. Chandrakar Sd/- Judge Chief Justice