HIGH COURT OF CHHATTI§GARH AT BILASPUR DMSION B 7 CORAM: ‘ HON’BLE SHRI /RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. "n- § Misc. Aggeal (o) N6. 606 of 200 Chainalé Singh Thakur, slo Toran‘ Singh Thakur, aged about 22 years, ‘VRiolVillafge Bhatagaon (Bee), Police . Station Gunderdehi, Tahsil ‘Gundeyd’ehi, Distt. Durg (6.6. ) Agpenant _ Climant VERSUS > Nutanl :s/o Ramcharan Sahu, aged about 26 years, Rio village Dubna, Police Station Navapara Rajim, District Raipur Resgondents (Driver) Jaloluddin, s/o Budruddin, R/ Ga'riyaband, (Police. Statio Gariyaba‘nd, district Raipur .C.G. (Owner) a e New India lnsurance Company ditic Raipur C.G. r r ‘(lnsurer) (Miscellaneous Aggeal uIS‘173 of the Motor Vehicle Act; Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the appellant. shri Dashrath'Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. None fer respondents No.1 and 2. I . resent :7‘ P ORDER 11) not“ January. 20 > \ w he folloWing order of the Court was passed by aev G'uptak, C.J. ENCH i : 6 a o n Th Raipur, srt T Rje @ Appellant — Chainal Singh Thakur is seekin enhancement of the compensatisn awarded by the} 12‘“ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for rshon ‘the Tribunai’) vide . é award dated. 24.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No.43/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by tiling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 31 .072003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,21,800/— as compensation along’with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. it 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny’of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Chainal Singh Thakur sustained multiple injuries in the motor accident on 31 .07.2003; the injuries and fractures sustained by the claimant in the motor accident resulted in permanent disability to the extent of 25%; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the a offending vehicle Minibus bearing registration No. C.G.04~ ZA/0633; as the above offending vehicle Minibus on the date of the accident was insured with theNew India insurance Company Limited and the lnsUrance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was M liable to pay compensation to the claimant. A »?A i 4) As the respondents héve not fileci any appeal against the award, the above findings recerded by the Tribunal have now attained finality 5) The Tribunal conSidering the number and nature of the iniuries proved to have been sustained by the ciaimant in the motor acmdent the resultant permanent disability to the extent of 25%;. and the amount proved to have been spent on his treatment, awarded Rs.91 ,800l- towards loss in the future earning capacity on aceount of the permanent disability; Rs.30,00Q/- under other heads including medical expenses; pain and suffering, speCIal diet conveyance attendant etc The Tribunal thus awarded a total sum of Rs1 21 800!— 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 compensation 'of Rs.1,21,800/— @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the, appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of .Rs.1,21,800/- only though the appellanti claimant on account of the injuries and fractures sustained by him in the motor aCcident and the resultant permanent disability to the extent of 25% has been rendered unfit to pursue any occupation - 7) Shri Dashrath Gupta learned counsel for respondent No 3 therNewr lndia Insurance Company Limited: on the other hand, supported the award and contended that ithe compensation of Rs.1,21,800/—‘ awarded by the Tribunal Is just and proper compensation in the facts‘and circumstancefs of'the present case. 8) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunais shouid f wl 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.1,21,800/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Ciaimant Chainai Singh Thakur was aged about 22 years on the date of the accident. He used to earn his livelihood by seiling bread and vegetables. He also Used to work sometime as labour. The claimant sustained fracture of his leg in the motor accident is fully established by the evidence of AW3 Dr. B.S. Bhaghel, who has also certified the resultant permanent disability to the extent of 25%. 'lt is a matter of common knowledge that substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. The claimant on account of the fracture of his leg could not r have pursued his occupation for a period of about 3-4 months resulting in manitory loss to, him. The claimant during this period must havefSuffered physical pain and mental agony.\ ‘11)‘ The compensation of Rs.1,21,800/— awarded by 2the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned c, “if? ' @ § i ‘ broad features of the case, in our opiriion, is on the lower side r and deserves to be enhanced to some efxtent. 1‘2) Considering all the retevant aspeicts of the Imatter, we are of the opinion that further award of ERs.21,000/— inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.1,i21,800/- awarded by the Tribunal 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 allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.21,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.1 ,21 ,BQOI- awarded by the Tribunal. 14) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time forrdepositing the total sum of Rs.21 ,OOOJ- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. subbu 15) No order as to costs. ; T‘si A Sd/. > “j Sd/— Chief Justice i _ . Rang'nathChandrakar Judge