-M HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeal No. 778 of 2003 ^ Appellant Claimant Mohammad Akram, S/o late Mohammad Afsar Ali, aged about 19 years, R/o , Magarpara, near Kabristan, Khangali, Magarplar, Bilaspur, tehsil and district Bilaspur C.G. VERSUS Respondents Non-applicants Kalesh Sukni, s/o Saenapati, caste Uriya, aged about 32 years, r/o Ambatola, thana Bhawanip Tanam, district lllahadi, Orrisa, at present address near F.C.I. Godown, Tarbhar, Teh. & dist. Bilaspur C.G. (Vehicle Driver) Sachidayand, s/o N.N. Jha, R/o near F.C.I. Godown, Tarbhar, Teh. & dist. Bilaspur C.G. (Vehicle Owner) The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Branch Manager, Branch Office Rajandre Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur C.G. MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDRR SEGTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT -"•rs- Present: Shri Anil Tripathi, counsel for the appellant. None for respondents No. 1 and 2. Shri Pankaj Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER •th (25tnApril,2011) ^».-"as>^ y^. '^ 'l. ^ . ^/ s •'t •-ts.s^ ^ l'K-2^ir The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/ Claimant Mohammad Akram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 5 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (forshort 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 09.05.2003, passed in Claim Case No.76/2002. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.3,20,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under ^ection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26.05.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.56,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% 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 daimant Mohammad Akram sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 26.05.2002; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tanker bearing registration No.C.G.-10-ZB 1012; as the above offending vehicle Tanker on tlie date of the accident was insured with the New India Insurance Company Limited-and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation tothe claimant. .J.iiiL.iiJ. .Ibu. I; 1 V?^r' jf •T. -r--:tg: ^-R'!&-;sy 4) As the respondents have not filedany appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering the number and-nature of the injuries proved tohave beensustained by the claimant in the motor accident and theamount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.36,000/- towards loss in the future earning capacity on account of the permanent disability; Rs.1S,000/- towards medical expenses; and Rs.5,000/-towards painand suffering. TheTribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.56,000/- as compe'Rsation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motoraccident. The Tribunal furiiher directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.56,000/- @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Anil Tripathi, learned counsel forthe appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.56,000/- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to theextentof 30%, 7) Shri Pankaj Agrawal, iearnedCounsel for respondent No.3 the New l^dia Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tanker, Qpthe other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.56,ODO/- awarded by the Tn'bunal is just anct proper compensation in the facts and circumstances 6f the presentGase. :-';»; "». ,0-) 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded bythe Courts/Tribunals should bejust and proper compensatjon 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 thecompensation of Rs.56,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Claimant Mohammad Akram was aged about 19-20 years on the date of the accideht. He claimedthathe used l^iwork as a Teacher in Darje Hind, a religious organization, getting salary of Rs.2,000/- per month. The claimant sustained fractures in the motor accident is established from the evidence of AW-2 Dr.G.L.Arora. It is a matter of common knowledge that substantiat amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. The claimant on account of the fracture in his right leg could not have attended to his duties for a period of 4-6 months, resulting in monitory loss tohim. The Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards loss of income during the period of treatment; attendant; special diet; and conveyance. 11) The cornpensation of Rs.56,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad il features of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on thelowerside and deservesto be enhanced suitably. ii i..! UyiKa;iiifiii 12) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.56,000/- awarded by the Tjibunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowediin part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.20,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in additior^to the sum of Rs.56,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 14) Respondent No.3 theNew India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.20,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 15) No order as to costs. Sd/- OuefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge.