^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 814 of 2008 Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-applicants Kartikram, S/o Basawan Sahu, aged about 45 years, R/o Village Tarra, Post Kathiya, Thana Abhanpur, District - Raipur (CG) VERSUS Rajesh Kumar, S/o Shreechand Pinjati, aged about 41 years, R/o New Central Bank, Bastar Road, Dhamtari, Thana, Tehsil & District Dhamtari (CG) (Driver & Owner of the vehicle Car bearing Regd No CG-05/C 9999) ICICI Lombard, General Insurance, Lalganga Shopping Complex Mall, GE Road, Raipur District Raipur (CG) (Insurer of the vehicle Car bearing Regd No CG-05/C 9999) Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri KK Dewangan, counsel for the appellant. Shri Amrito Das, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (22nd June,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. .^"/2^s ..^ ...^ /£ \ '^..Jj lS.,;fc^ AppellanVclaimant Kartikram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.11.2007, passed in Claim Case No.90/2007. 2). As against the compensation of Rs.11,10,000/- claimed by the appellanVclaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.04.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.91,942/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Kartikram sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 04.04.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Honda City Car bearing registration No.C.G.05 C/9999; as the above offending vehicle Honda City Car, on the date of the accident was insured with the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. ,..^ .^..^ "%, /y' ^"""'% x ns -W""'5J '•'^.^/ ^::.^^' ^ IK—^ 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.75,942/- towards medical expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards future medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; and Rs.2,000/- towards special diet. The Tribunal, thus, assessed the total compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.92,942/-, but out of arithmetical mistake only Rs.91,942/- was awarded as compensation. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.91,942/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri KK Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards loss of income during the period of treatment; attendant; and conveyance; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.91,942/- only. 7) Shri Amrito Das, learned counsel for respondent No.2 the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle Honda City Car, on the other hand, while admitting the arithmetical mistake in totaling the compensation by the Tribunal, contended that the compensation 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/Tribunals should • M': / -A':7'S^' / .-. ..•:" "<.' "I^ 4'o ^,111111 N» 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.91,942/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 10) Claimant Kartikram was aged about 45 years on the date of the accident. He claimed that he was running a Kirana Shopat the relevant time though no license or certificate was produced before the Tribunal in support of the above plea. The claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures is established from the material available on record. It is a matter of common knowledge that substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. As the claimant suffered fractures of both his femur bones, he could not have attended to his duties for a period of 4-6 months, resulting in monitory loss. The Tribunal apparently has fallen into error in not awarding any sum towards loss of income during the period of treatment; attendant; and conveyance. 11) The compensation of Rs.91,942/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above meritioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and-deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 12) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter including the arithmetical mistake committed by the Tribunal, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.30,000/- inclusive of interest / •^ '^ '^ -s- •^"..— >NN""1^ subbu component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.91,942/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.30,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.91,942/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14) Respondent No.2 the ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the totat sum of Rs.30,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge 4