Clalmant OF AT BENCH QUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SUNIL KUIVIAR J. (Cl No. 985 of 2010 Shiv Kumar Nishad; age 29 yrs; S/o late Beersigh Nishad, R/o Viljage Shinghanpur/ P.s. Pithora, Tahsi! & Distt. IViahasamund (C.G.) Versus Jall Lai Sahu, age 32 yrs, s/o Shri Panchkoud Sahu, R/o Viliage Shighanpur, P.S. Pithora, Tahsil & Distt. (Non-appi'Icants) Mshssamund (C.G.) (Driver of Pick-Up C.G.04AJ/7604) Van No. Mohit Kumar Sahu, age 35 yrs. S/o Shri Banshilal Sahu, R/o ChowSa Complex, Devendra Nagar, Raipur, At present R/o Village Shighanpur, P.S. Pithora, Tahsil & Dlstt. Mahasamund (C.G.) (Owner of . Pick-Up Van NO.C.G.04/J/7604) 3. I.C.I.C.I. Lombard General insurance Com. Ltd., through Divisional Office, Lal Ganga Shopping Mal, G.E. Road, Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Snsurer Com. of Plck-Up Van NO.C.G.04/J/7604) MisceSiarseovs appeal under Sectlon 173 ofthe Motor^VsliiclesAct Present: Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel forthe appeilant. ORDER (23rd September, 2010) ••l^ ^ %-.,. 't^<..^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta; CJ. Shri J.A. Lohani, learned counsel for the appeilant ss heard on !.A. No.01/2010, an appiicatlon for condonation of the delay in fiiing the appeai. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appe)!ant and the grounds taken in the appiication, we are satisfsed that the appeitant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the deiay in fiiing the appeal. 3) i.A. No.01/2010, theretbre, is allowed and the deiay in filing the appea! is hereby condoned. 4) Shri J.A. Lohanl, learned counsei for the appeilant is heard on admlssion. 5) Appeliant - Shiv Kumar Nishad is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Mahasamund (for short, sthe Tribunal') Vide award dated 10.11.2009, passed in Claim Case No. 101 of 2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.11,50,000/- clajmed by the appeitant/ claimant, unfortunate son of deceased Shanti Bai, by fjjlng a clajm petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for her death in the motor accident on 08.10.2008, the TribunaJ awarded a tota! sum of Rs.2,03,600/- as compensation aiong with snterest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tll! the date of actual payment. ^'y\. :'• <^ 7) Shri J.A. Lohani, iearned counsel f'or the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awar^ing low compensation of Rs.2,03,600/- oniy. 8) !n a motor accident ciaim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be just and proper compensation in the t'acts and circumstances of ths case. !t shoujd neither be a meager amount of compensation; nor a Bonanza. 9) Considering that claimant Shiv Kumar Nishad is aged about 29 years and must be having his own independent income and as such. was not whotly dependent on her mother deceased Shanti Baj and deceased Shanti Bai was aged about 47 years on the date of the accident, we are satisfied that the compensation of Rs.2,03,600/- awarded by the Tribunal cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeai. 10) We; therefore; do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 11) The appea! fjled by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation,. therefore; is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu