A - F. /^. ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHAT B!LASPUR DIVSSSONBENCH CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. HON'BLESHRIPRASHANTKUMARMiSHRA,J. IVIssc. Appeaj No. 367 of 2006 Aopellant : Laxman Ram, S/o Shani Ram,aged Claimant about 40 years, Caste - Urawn, Occupation - Cieaner (Khalasi) R/o Village Ankarikona, PS & Tahsil : Bagicha, Distt Jaspur (CG) ^" Respondents Owner VERSUS Neelam Transport Company, Through : Owner and Director Moh Aleem S/o Late Moh Ayyub aged about 35 years, Occupation 1 Transport Business, Kharsia Naka, Ambikapur, Surguja (CG) Insurer 2* New India insurance Company, Through : Branch Manager, New India Insurance Company, Rajpur (CG) \. Driver 3 Adverd Lakra S/o Itisiyus Lakra,aged about 40 years, Occupation Vehide Driver, R/o Chhapartoli (Sukha Pokhar) Villar Jamchuia, PS Narayanpur, Tahsii Kunkuri, Distt Jaspur (CG) Memorandum of Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present : Shri Rahul IVIishra, counsel for theappellant. Shri Lokesh Singh, counse! on behalf of Shri Sourabh Dangi, counsel for respondents No.1 and 2. Shri Shree Kumar Agrawai,! Senior Counsel with Shri Anand Gupta, counsel forrespondent No.5. r;^ • •^ ORDER gth (24tnIVIarch,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta,C.J. AppellanV Claimant Laxman Ram isseeking enhancement of the compens^tion awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 06.01.2006, passed in Claim Case No.63/2003. 2) Asagainst the compensation of Rs.15,60,000/-, claimed by the appeltant/claimant, by fiiing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 03.11 .2002, the Tribunai awarded a total sum of Rs.6,01,600/- as compensatlon along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tili the date of actual payment. 3) Shri Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.6,01,660/- only, though the appelianVclaimant on account of the injuries and fractures sustained by him in the motor accident and the resultant 100% permanent disability has been rendered unfit topursue any occupation. 4) Shri Shree Kumar Agrawal, learned Senior Counsei with Shri Anand Gupta, tearned counset for respondent No.2 the New India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand contended that the ciaimant's claim petition fited under Section 166 of the Motor ^f^^ te •-.^ " \.^ Vehides Act was not maintainable in yiew ofthe dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. vs. Premlata Shukia & Ors. reported in 2007 AIR SCW 3591,Wherein it was heid that proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle is sine qua non for maintaining application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act. 5) Shri Lokesh Singh, iearned counsei for respondents No.1 and 3 also supported theaward. 6) in a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts / Tribunais shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It shoutd neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a bonanza. 7) Claimant Laxman Ram was aged about 40 years on the date of the accident. He was Khalasi/ CIeaner by occupation. At the time of the accident even according to the claimant, no other vehicle was involved in the acddent. The ciaimant in hls ciaim petition has not even aileged any negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The ciaimant pleaded that he used to earn Rs.3,000/- per month as Khaiasi/ Cleaner. 8) The compensation of Rs.6,01,660/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above msntioned broad features of thecaseand the drcumstances leading to theaccident in which the daimant claims to have sustained injuries, in our opinion, cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancementin this appeal. ,,^irfs^ ^ . .^,". ^ nfmmi / 9) The appea! fi!ed by the appetlant/claimant, for enhancement ofthe compensation, therefore, faits and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge \..^