xx HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH \I ORAM: ' HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. AQQeaI (C! No. 152 of 2006 Appellant : Akash Shukla, s/o Babu Ram shukla, Claimant aged about 16 yrs, appellant is represénted by Iegal guardian mother Smt. Urmila‘shukla w/o Babu Ram Shukla, aged about 50 yrs. R/o Abhanpur Basti, P.S. Abhanpur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur C.G. VERSUS Respondents 1. KailashVDhankute @ Chhotu s/o Dada. Dhankute, r/o Model Town Nehru Nagar Bhilai, distt. Durg C.G. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Board Office Durg, By ivisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur C.G. x MISC; APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR resent: Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appellant. Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (07th March, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. C ' D VEHICLES ACT. P Appellant/ claimant Akash Shukla is seeking enhancement of the compensation aWarded by the 13th Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 10.03.2006, passed in Claim Case No.59/2005. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.38,00,000/- 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 13.10.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,51,000/- 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 considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the‘ motor accident and the amount prov‘ed to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.96,000/- towards loss in the future earning ’ capacity; Rs.20,000/— towards medical expenses; Rs.20,000/- towards loss in the expectancy of life; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/— for special diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,51,000/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 4) Shri A.L. Singraul, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,51,000/— only though the appellant/r claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in ¢ ,./// i the mo‘tor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent" of 40%. 5) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for-respondent No.2 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, submitted that the Tribunal has awarded substantiai amount of Rs.1,51,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 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. lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 7) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,51,000/— awarded by the Tribunal isjust and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case.‘ 8) Claimant Akash Shukla was aged about 16 years on the date of the accident. He claimed that he was earning Rs.4,000/— per month as Auto Mechanic. On his‘initial medical examination in Chandulal Chandrakar Memorial Hospital, Bhilai no bony injury was detected as is mentioned in his discharge ticket EXP/18. Similarly, in his MLC report the injury found on his right ankle was reported to be simple in nature. Surprisingly, AW2 Dr.G.S.Bachchu has even then certified it to be a case ofr‘ permanent disability to the extent of 40%. 9) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the above—mentioned broad, features of the case, we are satisfied that the compensation of Rs.1,51,000/— awarded by the Tribunal does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 10) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be (M dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. l Sd/- Sd/- j Rangnath Chandrakar Chief Justice r Judge subbu