c c c c HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRIRAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SiNHA, J. ADDellant Claimant Respondents Non-aDDlicants Misc Appeal No. 920 of 200S Prahlad Kumar Sharma @ Shiva Sharma, S/o Shri Mahavir Prasad Sharma, aged about 36 years, R/o Baikunthpur, Dhangardipa, Raigarh, Tahsil and District - Raigarh (CG) VERSUS 1 Raghuvir Jha, S/o Ramnarayan Jha, R/o Sisan Road, Gumla, At presently R/o Natwarlal Agrawl, Goods Carrier, Behind FCI Godown, Raigarh, Tahsil and District - Raigarh (CG) 2 Natwarial Agrawal, S/o Shakarlal Agrawal, R/o Buji Bhawan Chowk, Raigarh, Tahsil and District - Raigarh 3 TheOriental InsuranceCo. Ltd., Branch Office, Itwari Bazar, Ralgarh, Tahsil & District Raigarh (CG) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of MotorVehicleAct1988 Present : Shri ArnitiiSharma, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (17th February, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. c --;: c '•-^•' c c Appellant Prahlad Kumar Sharma @ Shiva Sharma is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 10.02.2005, passed in Claim Case No.39/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.10,73,931.97 claimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.05.2003; the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,46,992/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum frpm the date of the filing of the daim petition till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Prahlad Kumar Sharma @ Shiva Sharma sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on 12.05.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tanker bearing registration No.CG-13-ZC/0136; as the above offending vehicle Tanker on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Ceimpany 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 flndings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. m^ 1?-1 c c c c 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the jnjuries proved to have been sustainedbythe claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.75,000/- towards permanent djsabilityon account of the injurjes and the fractures sustained bythe claimant in the motor accident; Rs.54.992.64 towards medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- for special diet; Rs.7,000/- for damage to the claimant's motorcyde. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,46,992/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accidentand the damage caused to his motorcycle. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,46,992/- @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Amit Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,46,992/- only, though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture in the motor accident resulting in permanentdisability to the extent of 40%. 7) Shri Sudhip-Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,46,992/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 8) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunals should be e ^&, i ."-^ /' "'Nssgsss^ c .' c c c 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.1,46,992/- awardedby the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 10) Claimant Prahlad Kuma»Sharma@ Shiva Sharma was aged about 36 years on the date of the accident. Accordtng to the claimant, at the relevant time he was working as Supervisor with a private contractor. He daimed that he was getting salary of Rs.4,000/- per month. The bills and vouchers produced before the Tribunal were to the extent of Rs.54,992.64 and the Tribunal awarded the .entire amount of Rs.54,992.64 towards medical expenses. 11) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel forthe parties; the number and nature ofthe injuries provedto have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident; and the bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal to establish the medical expenses, we are satisfied that the compensation of-Rs.1,46,992/- awarded by the Tribunal is justand proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 12) We, therefore,. do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. fs:t^\ Jt./ padma 13) The appeal filed bythe appeHanVdaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore is liable to be dismissed and is herebydismissed, 14) No order as to costs. r— ' '-—===—-, Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- f Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge f ^