ri; '•s^ W"^-,^.. H S ''i&^.y^ S 'i \, "S ]/ \iv:^.£^ 9 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAhfl: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Appellant Claimant Respondents Non-appticants IVIisc. Appeal (C) No. 226 of2010 Smt. Pushpa Thakur, wife of Kumar Singh Thakur, aged abput 42 years, occupation teacher, r/o Bharkapara, near to Agrasen Bhawan, town, tahsil and Rajnandgaon C.G. VERSUS 1 Pardesi Ram, son of Bodhi Ram Netam, aged about 28 years, r/o Chanwardhal, tahsil Ghumka, district Rajnandgaon C.G. (Driver) 2 Smt. Neelam Poddar wife of Samir Poddar, aged about 39 years, r/o Ganj Chowk, town, tahsil and district Rajnandgaon C.G. (Owner) 3 The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Manager, near LIC Office, Station Road, town, tahsil and district Rajnandgaon C.G. Misc. Apj)ealAinder^ectJon173 ofthe Motor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri V.K. Sharma, counsel for the appeltant. Shri H.P. Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER •th (05mAugust,2011) k •;.s~>.~ MAC.No. 226 of 2010 The following order of the CQurt was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/ claimant Smt. Pushpa Thakur is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.11.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 159/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.9,03,000/- claimed by the appellanVclaimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 23.08.2008, the Tribunal awardeda total sum of Rs.2,30,200/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition titl the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck Tipper bearing registration No.CG-IO-ZC-3367, liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As, the insurer of the above offending vehicte Truck Tipper has not fited any appeal challenging the above finding recorded by the Tribunal, the same now has attained finality. 5) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the r M.A.C.No. 226 of 2010 motor accident and the amount proved to have spent on treatment, awarded Rs.1,35.000/- towards medical expenses and special diet and conveyance; Rs.32,000/- for loss of income/leave during the period of treatment; Rs.30,000/- towards non-pecuniary damages on account of permanent disability; Rs.33,200/- towards permanent disability. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.2,30,200/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.2,30,200/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri V.K. Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.2,30,200/- only, though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 50%. 7)- Shri H.P. Agrawal, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Truck Tipper on the other hand, contended that the compensation of Rs.2,30,200/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. M.A.C.NO. 226 of 2010 -7-M 8) In a motor accident claim case what is important is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunal 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. 9) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.2,30,200/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and. proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 10) Claimant Smt. Pushpa Thakur was 42 years of age on the date of the accident. She was working as a Teacher in a Government School. In all likelihood, the medical expenses incurred by the claimant on her treatment must have been reimbursed by her employer, State Government. Even if it is not so, the Tribunal has awarded the entire amount of Rs.1,35,000/-, which was the total of the bills and vouchers produced by the claimant towards medical expenses. The claimant categorically admitted in her cross-examination that her salary after the acbident is more than what she was getting prior to the accident. It has come in her evidence that after the accident she was promoted from Lower Division Teacher to Upper Division Teacher. Thus, it is apparent that the injuries and fractures sustained by the claimant in the motor accident has not at all adversely affected h^future earning capacity. —-.---^.l' MAC.No. 226 of 2010 ^ subbu 11) The compensation of Rs.2,30,200/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, in our opinion, can never be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeal. 12) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge '•/ f