^.•-"•a3^>;. .; /'^\ "<^ 7s X' ". x '>; 'lggShf f ^&^ y'.y .^ •s-... '<..-,.? '""'"l^ ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Respondents Owner Misc. Appeal (0 No. 853 of2009 Appellant : Roopdas aged about 25 years, s/o Claimant Lakhandas Verma, by caste Lodhi, r/o village Singola Lanji thana Lanji distt. Balaghat (M.P.) VERSUS 1. Niraj Kumar Singh aged about 32 years, s/o Uttam Singh Thakur, r/o village Sankra, thana Gavapara, tahsil and district Durg. Driver 2. Raj Kumar Pal aged about 28 years, s/o Ramdhun Pal, r/o Jangalpur, post and tahsil Khairagarh, distt. Rajnandgaon. Insurer 3. National Insurance Company Ltd. registered office, 3, Midliton Street Calcutta, through Branch Manager Gill Complex Near Gurudwara Station Road, Durg AppeaLunder S^ction 173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Parag Kotecha and Shri Yogesh Chandra, counsel for the appellant. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (26th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. r Z-M Appellant/ claimant Roopdas is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Khairagarh, district Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 17.02.2009, passed in Claim Case No.74/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.58,31,751/- 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 04.04.2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,18,767/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% 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 National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper-Truck bearing registration No.C.G.04J 1899, liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Dumper- Truck has not filed any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.65,767.17 towards medical expenses; Rs.45,000 towards grievous injuries; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; and Rs.3,000/- for special diet, attendant and I conveyance. The Tribunal, thus, assessed the total compensation payable to the claimant at Rs.1,18,767.17. The Tribunal by rounding off the above amount, awarded Rs.1,18,767/-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.1,18,767/- @ 7.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Parag Kotecha and Shri Yogesh Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in not awarding any sum towards loss of income during the period oftreatment; and in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,18,767/- only. 7) Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the National Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Dumper-Truck, on the other hand, contended that the compensation of Rs.1,18,767/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the 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 just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 2.b 9) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,18,767/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Claimant Roopdas was aged about 25 years on the date of the accident. He is an agriculturist and also a registered medical practitioner. The claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident is established from the evidence of AW-2 Dr. R. Sadani. It 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 fractures sustained by him in the motor accident could not have peri'ormed his agricultural operations for a period of 3 - 4 months. The claimant, as such, must have been compelled to engage agricultural labour for performing agricultural operations during the said period, resulting in monitory loss to the claimant. The Tribunal certainly has erred in not awarding any sum in that behalf. 11) The compensation of Rs.1,18,767/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 12) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.15,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.1,18,767/- awarded by the '^ 1.^ subbu Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 13) The appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.15,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum ofRs.1,18,767/- awarded bythe Tribunal. 14) Respondent No.3 the National Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.15,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 15) No order as to costs. —-—— Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Rangaath Chandrakar Judge