HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Misc,ApeeaL(ClNo,554of2QQ9 IVIahipat Chouhan ^ Vs. New India tnsurance Company Ltd. & Others Post of pronouncement ofjudgment and orders on^)/04/2009. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge y HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Appeilant Claimant ^. Respondents Misc. Appeal (C) No: 554 of 2009 Mahipat Chouhan, S/o Santram Chouhan, aged about 18 years, occupation service (presentiy not working) R/o Darogamuda, Bypass Marg, Behind Shrawan Dabha, Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG). Versus 1. New India Insurance Company Ltd. Sattigudi Chowk, Raigarh (CG). 2. Sumit Agrawal s/o Suresh Agrawal, occupation owner of the vehicle, R/o Gandhiganj, Raigarh (CG). 3. Vikrama Ram, S/o Badairam, aged about 40 years, occupation Driver of the vehicle, R/o Gaya, Thana Rehala, District Palamu (Jharkhand). Presently R/o C/o Shop of Sumit Agrawal, Dhimrapur, District Raigarh (CG). MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 (Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.l Present Shri SRJ Jaiwal, Advocate forthe appellant. None for the respondents. 1. 2. ORDER (Passed on ^-o dav of ADril, 20091 Learned counsel forthe appeiiant is heard on admission. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appelianVciaimant, seeking enhancement of the compensation, awarded by the 3rd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short Tribunai') vide award dated 22.08.08, passed inciaim case No. 15/07. As per the claimant, on 27.02.2007 when the claimant Mahipat Chouhan, aged about 18 years, reached near Sarangarh Railway Crossing, the Driver of Dumper fTruck), /.:. II [!K.I il:HI bearing registration No. CG 12-ZC-2383 dashed him from behind by driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. Pursuant to the said accident, the ciaimant sustained injuries in the left leg, resulting 30 percent permanent disability. FIR has been lodged at Raigarh Poiice Station against the Driver of Dumper (Truck). On admission made by the Driver, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raigarh, in criminal case No. 993/07, imposed a fine of Rs. 500/- vide order dated 03.07.07. 4. The Driver/owner of the vehicle pleaded in their reply that accident tookpiace due to negligence of claimant himself and also pleaded that in any case, if at ai! it 'ss found that ciaimant is entitled for any amount of compensation, then the liability is ofthe respondent No. 1/insurance company. 5. L^arned Tribuna!, after a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, and considering the materials available on record, held that the said acddent occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the Driver ofthe Dumper (Truck) and in the said accident claimant sustained permanent disability to the extent of 30 percent. The Tribunal, by applying myltiplier method, assessed income of deceased at Rs. 3000/- per month and by applying the muitiplier of 16, accessed the loss of income/salary Rs. 1,72,800/-. By awarding a further sum of Rs. 26,044/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 6000/- towards special diet and Rs. 20,000/- towards permanent disability, a total amount of Rs. 2,33,8441- has been awarded. interest @ 7.5 percent per annum w.e.f. ^ o^ f -•^'" 8. 24.07.07till the actual payment has also been awarded by the Tribunal. Shri S.RJ. Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the appeilant/claimant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in assessing the compensation by awarding oniy an amount of Rs. 2,33,844/-towards compensation which is on the lower side. ina motor accident ctaim case, as per Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the CourtsfTribuna! shouid be just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstanceof each case. It shouid neither be a bounty nor charity. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of the injury sustained and the resuitant loss, ! arn satisfied that the compensation of Rs. 2,33,844/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation. 1 therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal either on account of the assessment of the income or on account of the multiplier applied by the Tribunal. The appeal filed by the claimant for enhancement of the compensation hastherefore no merit the same is liable to be and Is accordingly dismissed summarily. Sahu Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge