HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. App‘eal No. 470 of 2005 Smt Ram Bai, w/o Prabhuram‘Sahu, aged 47 years, R/o Vill Raipura, Post Raipura, PS Puranibasti, Distt Raipur (CG) Appellant Claimant VERSUS Narayan Chandra Pal, S/o Bhupati Bhushan Pal, R/o Shivanand Nagar, PS Khamtarai, Tah & Distt Raipur (CG) (Driver and owner of the Truck) Respondents 2. The United India Insurance Co Ltd., Through — divisional Manager, Division Office — Katcheri ChoWk, J ail Road, Raipur (CG) MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE ~ MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Present: Shri SK Guha, counsel for the appellant. Shri MK Bhaduri, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Dasarath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (23rd March, 2011) a The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. x /// /. / » Appellant Smt Ram Bai is seeking enhancement of the compensatien a‘warded by the 14‘“ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 22.02.2005, passed in Claim Case No. 7/2004. 2) As againstthe compensation of Rs.43,25,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant, unfortunate widow of deceased Prabhuram Sahu, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for his death on 11.02.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.72.000/- as compensation along with interest- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. J 3) Shri SK Guha, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.72,000/— only. 4) Shri Dasarath Gupta. learned counsel vfor respondent No.2 the United India Insurance Company Limited on the other hand supported the award and contended that as deceased Prabhuram Sahu was aged about 65 years on the date of the accident, the ; compensation of Rs.72,000/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) Shri MK. Bhaduri, learned counsel for respondent No.1 Narayan Chandra Pal, driver-cum-owner of the offending vehicle truck also supported the award. I 6) in a motor accideni 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) r Deceased Prabhuram Sahu was aged about 65 years on the date of accident as is evident from the admissions made by the sole claimant AW/1 Ram Bai in her cross-examination. Though the claimant claimed that he was earning Rs.8,000/— per month as contractor, no reliable and clinching evidence was led before the Tribunal to establish the above occupation of the deceased and his income to the extent of Rs.8,000/— per month. The sole claimant in the case‘is his widow Ram Bai, who was aged about 47 years on I the date of the accident. 8) The compensation of Rs.72,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case is somewhat on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 9) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, including the fact that the unfortunate accident wherein deceased Prabhuram Sahu lost his life took place in the year 2003,~we are of the opinion that further award of Rs.30,000/— inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.72,000/— awarded by the Tribunal as just a J and proper compensation in the facts and'circumstances of the present case. 10) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.30,000/— inclusive of interest component nhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.72,000/‘—' awarded by the Tribunal. 1) Respondent No.2 the United lndia insurance Company ositing the total sum of on the e 1 Limited is granted three months’ time for dep Rs.30,000/— before the concerning Ciaims'Tribunai. 12) No order as to costs. i .S(ill- Visunii Kumar Sinha / Judge Sd/_ Chief Justice r 7‘ Judge [i padma