^t A:r ;" '^y'.sf^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAWI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI N.K.AGARWAL, J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Misc. Appeal (C) No. 875 of 2007 Ramkrishna Verma, son of Inderman Verma, aged about 48 years, resident of village Bathena, Post Bathena, Tahsil Patan, District Durg VERSUS 1. Sanjay Kumar Verma, son of Shri Devnarayan Verma, aged about 28 years, resident of village Chhanta, Police Station Utai, District Durg (CG) 2. Doman Lal Verma, Son of Shri Bhuneshwar Prasad Verma, resident of village Amapandri, Post Tarra, Bhilai, Tahsil Patan, District Durg (CG) 3 Bajaj Alliances General Insurance Company Limited, Chauhan compled, in front of Rajkumar college, Near LML Show Room, Raipur (CG) Memo otappeal under Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri S.P. Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Shri Arvind Dubey, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri S.S. Rajput, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER >th (13l"July,2011) 'F-< -^.. The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/claimant Ramkrishna Verma is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide awa.rd dated 16.03.2007, passed in Claim Case No.94/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,40,500/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 ofthe IVIotor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 04.03.2004, the Trjbunal awarded a total sum of Rs.6,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% 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 the Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, the insurer ofthe offending vehicle Hero Honda motorcycle bearing registration No.C.G,07/Z/7120 liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) The Tribunal considering that the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident were simple in nature and the bills and vouchers produced by the claimant in regard to the medical expenses were to the extent of Rs.2,447/- only, awarded lump-sum of Rs.6,000/- 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 rt' r > -^' compensation of Rs.6,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri S.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.6,000/- only though the appellant/claimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident has been rendered unfit to pursue his occupation as agriculturist. 6) Shri S.S. Rajput, learned counsel for respondent No.3 Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, contended that as the claimant admittedly did not sustain any fracture in the motor accident, the compensation of Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal isjust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) Shri Arvind Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Sanjay Kumar Verma and respondent No.2 Doman Lal Verma, the driver and owner of the offending vehicle motorcycle also supported the award. 8) Claimant Ramkrishna Verma was aged about 48 years on the date of the accident. He was an agriculturist. The unfortunate accident wherein claimant Ramkrishna Verma sustained injuries took place on 04.03.2004 and the disability certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal was issued by the medical board on 02.09.2006 i.e. after more than two years of the accident. AW4 Dr. Rajendra Tiwari also claims to have examined the daimant for the first time on 28.09.2004 i.e. after more than six months of the ; :f accident. The bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal were to the extent of Rs.2,447/- only. 9) The compensation of Rs.6,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the abovementioned broad features of the case and the fact that the claimant admittedly did not sustain any fracture in the motor accident, in our opinion, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 10) 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 fails and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge nimmi r^ .-»<