HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR I DIVISION BENCH V: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. I I I CORAM: I I Misc. Appeal No‘. 702 of 2004 Prahlad Sharma, aged about 32 years, s/o Rajaram Sharma, qccupation ;Business R/o Takiya Road, Ambikapur, Thana & The. Ambikapur, distt. Surguja C.G. Appellant I VERSUS 1. Chhabra Bus Service through Propo Sardar Mahendra Singh Chhabra, S/o not known, R/o Ring Road Namnakalanagar; ”‘PS & Tehv Ambikapur, Diatt Surguja (CG) (Vehicle Owner) 2. The Oriental Insurance Company, Branch Am‘bikapur, Near by State Bank, Sadar Road, Ambikapur Nagar PS & Teh Ambikapur, Distt Surguja (CG) (insurance Company) 3. Md Shafique, @ Annual Hassan, S/o Manzoor Khan, aged about 38 years, Occupation — Vehicle D‘river, R/o Mominpura, Nagar PS &Teh Ambikapur, Dist Surguja (CG) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Present : Shri Sushil Dubey, counsel for the appellant; Shri AbhishekKSinha and Shri Varun Dubey, counsel for respondent No:§. ORDER (30th June, 2011) §The following order of the Coun was passed by Rajelev Gupta, c.J. ; Appellant/claimant Prahlad Sharma is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by ‘the Motor Accident Claims Tribdnal, Ambikapur, district Surguja (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 18.03.2004, passed in Claim Case No.49l2002. 2) - As against the compensation ofvRs.23,80,000/- claimed by u - the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motqr Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.04.1999, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,01,380/— as compensation along with interest @ 10% per annum in the event of insurer’s failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 60 days of the passing of the award. 3) T33 Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the insurer of the offending vehicle Bus bearing registration No.C.P.L/981 liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 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.5,71 ,200/- towards loss in the future earning capacity on account of the permanent disability to the extent of 70%; Rs.1,00,180/— for medical expenses and other incidental expenses; Rs.30,000/— towards conveyance etc; and Rs.1,00,000/— for pain and suffering. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.8,01,380/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the i i\ %_ motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the albove amount of compensation of Rs.8,01,380/— @ 10% per annum in the event of insurer’s failure to deposit the amount of compensation within 60 days of the passing of the award‘ 4) ‘Shri Sushil Dubey, Iearned counsel for the appellant vehe§mently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.8,01,380l— only; and in directing payment of V t interest in the event of insurer’s failure to deposit the amount of compensation within the stipulated period of 60 days. 5) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey, Iearned counsel for respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, insurer of the offending vehicle Bus, on the other hand, contended that the Tribunal has awarded excessive sum of Rs.801,380/- as compensation to the claimant. 6) 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. 7) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.8,01,380/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and cirCumstances of the present case. 8) Claimant Prahlad Sharma was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident. The claimant was running transport and hotel business. The injuries and fractures sustained by the claimant in the éti' ~i.\ , motqr accident led to amputation of his left Ieg resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 70%. The bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal in regard to the i medical expenses were to the extent of Rs.1,00,180/— and the i TriblJ‘nai has awarded the entire amount of Rs.1,00,180/— towards i t i medical expenses. i 9) The compensation of Rs.8,01,380/— awarded by the Tribunal ‘t when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features‘ of the case, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in th‘e facts and circumstances of the present case and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 10) Nevertheless the Tribunal has erred‘ in directing only conditional payment of interest in the event of insurer’s failure to deposit the amount of compensation within stipulated period of 60 days of the passing of the award. As the insurer of the offending vehicle in the present case has in fact deposited the amount of compensation on 14.05.2004 i.e. within the stipulated period of 60 days, the claimant has been deprived of the amount of interest to which he was otherwise entitled. 11) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter including the delay in the disposal of the claim petition and the present appeal and the fact that the Insurance Company alone is not to be blamed i\ for the entire delay in the matter, we deem it proper to award a quantified sum of Rs.40,000/- towards interest on the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. l l l i 12)Y For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed 1n part. While maintaining the amount of compensation of Rs.8,01,380/— i awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant is awarded further sum of l Rsl40,000/— towards quantified amount of interest on the corllnpens-ation of Rs.8,01 ,380/— awarded by the Tribunal. 13) V Respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited is granted three months’ time for depositing the total sum of. Rs.40,000/— before the concerning Claims Tribunal. i4) No order as_to costs. Sd/— l Sdl- ‘l N. K. Agarwal i Chief Justice l Judge ’ l y ?