_ HIH COT OF CHHATTISGARH A'Il' BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH RAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. ‘ HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal No. 7'5 of 2606 ppellant Claimant Mahendra Kumar Gupta aged 35 yrs s/op Shri Badrl Prasad Gupta r/o Pushp M l G 11 MahaVIr Nagar Ralpur Post RaVIgram Ralpur Tah & Dlstt Ralpur C G VERSUS Daolat Singh, aged 30 yrs, Slo Shri Narayan Singh Shekhavat R/o Teen Dukan near Mungllpara Schoo Jatll Jaipur TIG Slkar Rajasthan ' Driver of vehlc|e No R J 14/G 6962 Respohdents Aasha Ayurvedlc Aoshdhl Kendr A-124 Murllpara Sceem Jaipu Post Jaipur Ralasthan 302019 Owner of vehlc|e No R J 14/G 6962 National Insurance Co Ltd through DIVISIonaI Manager Dlv Office G Road Ralpur C G Insurer of vehicle No.R.J.14/G.6962 ‘ Mem of ajpea‘l under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. i I S i —- , --,- I i Presentz‘ Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for the appellant. _ ShriRajrAwasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ' (04“ July, 2011) ' Te following order. Rajeev Gupta C.J of the Court was pasSed G UR CO & A l a r E d h ‘ , I Q99 i Appellant/claimant Mahendra Ku ar, Gupta is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additionai Motoi Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 29.06.2005, passed in Claim Qase No.76/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.2§7,00,000/— claimed by the l appellant] claimant by filing a claim petitioniunder Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15.06.2003, the Tribunal awardeda total sum of Rs.1‘,20,000/— as compensationalong with interest @ 6% per annum fromi the date of filing of the claim petition till the date ofactual payment. 3) .The Tribunal held the insurer of the ’offending vehicle Mahendra Pickup bearing registration No. RJ-14G/6962 liable to pay compensation to the claimant. The Tribunal considering the number and inature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on the treatment, awarded Rs.75,000/- towards medical expelnses; Rs.'25,000l— towards loss in the future earning capacity; Rs.10,000/— for pain and suffering; and Rs.10,000/- for future treatment. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,20,000/- 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.1,20,000/— @ 6%_.per annUm from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. /.. 4) Shri S.K. Guha, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding Iow compensation of Rs.1,2Q,000/— only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple i serious injuries includingk fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 43%. 5) Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel for respondent EL“, L No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Mahendra Pickup, on the §other hand, contended that the Tribunal has liberally awarded excessive sum of Rs.1 ,20,000/— as compensation to the claimant. 6) ln 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. llt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonan‘za. 7) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,%0,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper l compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Claimant Mahendra Kumar Gupta was aged about 35 years on thel date of the accident. At the relevant time, he was working as a. aCcouhtant in a private concern, Godawari Ispat. Though, the waccident occurred on 15.06.2003, only disability certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal was issued by AW2 Dr. G_,S.. i Bachhu on 10.02.2005 i.e. after more than 1‘ 1/2 years of the ’ ,l accident. Admittedly, Dr. G.S. Bachhu never treated the claimant for I i v x i 1 i l the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The clamant on i thedate of the accident was working as accountant and Iater on ’ became General Manager (Commercial) in the ‘same conce‘rnr Godawari lspat. There is no materiai to in!dicate that the claimant suffered any loss of income/ loss of futu‘re earning capacity on accoUnt of the injuries said to have been sustained by him in the motor accident. ‘ 9) fThe compensation of Rs.1,20,000/— awarded by the Tribunal when? examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfiedi does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 10) The appeal filed by the appellant] claimant forenhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed. l l 11) No order as to costs. , SCI/- N.K.Agarwa1 Judge x \l l ' Sd/— ,1 ChiefJustice > _ l