t^lc^^ /^- ^\ i.L^SS^-, 1 |'E^r' "j j 'Y -^^L^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Misc. Appeal (C) No. 804 of2009 Ganga Ram, s/o Chuanguram Sagarwanshi, aged about 48 years, r/o Station Para, ward No.9, Rajnandgaon, district Rajnandgaon C.G. VERSUS 1. Narsingh s/o Budhram aged about 35 r/o BMY Charoda, near Urla Gate, P.S. Bhilai-3, district Durg. 2. Santosh Kumar Sahu s/o Dashrath Lal Sahu, aged about 27 years, r/o Panchshil Nagar, Charoda, district Durg C.G. 3. The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Divisional Office Raipur, through Branch Manager, Power House Bhilai. Appeal underSection 173 ofthe MotorVehicle Act,1988 Rresent: Smt. Renu Kochar, counsel for the appellant. Shri Shivendu Pandya, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (11th July, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/claimant Ganga Ram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 11 Additiorial Motor Accident h-t'- 1-£ Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.06.2007, passed in Claim Case No.40/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.8,92,200/- 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 17.05.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.60,100/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% 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 insurer of the offending vehicle Tata Sumo bearing registration No.C.G.-04B/4726 liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) 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 the treatment, awarded Rs.25,100/- towards medical expenses; Rs.24,000/- towards loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.6,000/- towards special diet, conveyance and attendant; and Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.60,100/-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.60,100/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual pSyment. 5) Smt. Renu Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.60,100/- only. 6) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurerof the offending vehicle Tata Sumo, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.60,100/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7) In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should bejust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 8) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.60,100/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 9) Claimant Ganga Ram was aged about 48 years on the date of the accident. He was driver by occupation. AW-3 Dr. Sanjay Bakshi in para 4 of his cross-examination categorically stated that the claimant inspite of the injuries and the fractures sustained by him in the motor accident can perform his normal duties. The bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal towards medical expenses were to the extent of p.jdma Rs.25,100/- only and the Tribunal has awarded this entire amount of Rs.25,100/- towards medical expenses. 10) The compensation of Rs.60,100/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 11) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation fails and is hereby dismissed. 12) No order as to costs. — Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar Judge iCT?EE3: