<?<. BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT^F CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. fC) No. 3? /2009 'lffll '^3e APRELLANT: OAlMANT ? Kholuram Nayak, S/o HarisinghNayak, .<g.--,^»—Aged about 33 Years, -.^ Xi-^A R/o vi"a9e Sunsuniya, fc.---^9-pf^.^v Bagbahra,^ ^•^A^^'^d.^"?' Thana Bahbahra, a,.^^"1 ''..£i'f^ RESPONDENTS: NON^APPLICANTS District Mahasamund, (C.G.) VERSUS l^Ajeb Singh, S/o Amrik Singh, Aged about 35 years, R/o Bhilai, Nehru Nagar, Thana Supela, District-Durg (C.G.) (OiOnyr) (efwev of the Vehicle Trailer Bearing Regd. No. CG 04/J 6871) 2.,Harnek Singh, S/o Mangal Singh, e^ aged about 32 years, R/o Gurudwara Shopping Center, Thana Sani, District Vadodra, (Gujrat) Present Address:- Central Cargo Motors Transport Nagar, Bhilai, Thana Bhilai-3, District-Durg (C.G.) ^viver) (Ownerof the Vehicle Trailer Bearing ,^ Regd. No.CG 04/J 6871) 3. Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Area Complex, G.E. Road, Bhilai (Insurer of the Vehicle Trailer Bearing Regd. No. CG 04/J 6871) 4. Harjeet Singh Bagga, S/o Santsingh Bagga, ward No. 8, behind Gurudwara, Main Road, Bagbahra, District Mahasamund (C.G.) (Owner of the Vehicle Truck Bearing Regd. No. CG 07/C 3652) -t.- -^siM Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sai Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of the Vehicle Truck Bearing Regd. No. CG 07/C 3652) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 311 of 2009 Appellant (Claimant) Kholuram Nayak, s/o Harisingh Nayak, aged about 33 years, r/o village Sunsuniya, Bagbahra, thana Bahbahra, district Mahasamund C.G. VERSUS Respondents Non-applicants Ajeb Singh, s/o Amrik Singh, aged about 35 years, r/o Bhilai, Nehru Nagar, thana Supela, district Durg C.G. (Owner of the vehicle Trailor bearing regd. No.C.G. 04/J 6871) Harnek Singh, s/o Mangal Singh, aged about 32 years, r/o Gurudwara Shopping Center, Thana Sani, district Vadodra, (Gujrat) Present Address: Central Cargo Motors Transport Nagar, Bhilai, thana Bhilai-3, district Durg C.G. (Driver of the vehicle Trailor bearing regd.No.C.G.04/J6871) Manager, United India Insurance Company Limited, Area Complex, G.E. Road, Bhilai (Insurer of the vehicle Trailor bearing regd.No.C.G.04/J6871) Harjeet Singh Bagga, s/o Santsingh Bagga, ward No.8, behind Gurudwara, Main Road, Bagbahra, district Mahasamund C.G. (Owner of the vehicle Truck bearing regd. No. C.G. 07/C 3652) Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Sai Nagar, MACNo.311 of 2009 (^ Raipur, district Raipur C.G. (Insurer of the vehicle Truck bearing Regd. No. C.G. 07/C 3652) Memo of appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey, counsel for respondent No.3. Shri Ajay Mishra, counsel for respondent No.5. ORDER (23rd August, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appeltant/ claimant Kholuram Nayak is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.12.2008, passed in Claim Case No.104/2008. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.04.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1,17,8157- 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 on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it held that claimant Kholuram Nayak sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident on ^ MACNo.311 of 2009 w. -^-; 06.04.2007; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Trailor bearing registration No. C.G. 04/J 6871; as the above offending vehicle Trailor on the date of the accident was insured with the United India Insurance Company Limited and the Insurance Company could not establish any breach of the policy conditions, the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 4) As the respondents have not filed any appeal against the award, the above findings recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5) 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 proved to have spent on treatment, awarded Rs.62,815/- towards medical expenses; Rs.25,000/- towards pecuniary loss on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident; Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering; and Rs.10,000/- for loss of income during the period of treatment. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,17.815/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.1,17.815/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel for .the appellant placing reliance on the dictum of the v.\ ^ i "v: i, MAC N0.311 of 2009 f-e Apex Court in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh, reported in AIR 2003 SC 674 submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,17.815/- only though the appellant/ claimant, a truck driver by occupation, suffered amputation of his right leg below knee rendering him unfit to pursue his occupation as truck driver. 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Varun Dubey, learned counsel for respondent No.3, the United India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Trailor, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1,17,815/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Ajay Mishra,,learned counsel for respondent No.5, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the Truck which was being driven by the claimant himself at the time of the accident also supported the award. 9) 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. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,17,815/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. MACNo.311 of 2009 '^ 11) Claimant Kholuram Nayak was aged about 33-35 years on the date of the accident. He was a truck driver by occupation. The claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident which led to amputation of his right leg below knee is established from the evidence of AW3 Dr. S.K. Shukla. The bills and vouchers produced by the claimant before the Tribunal in regard to medical expenses were to the extent of Rs.62,815/-. The daimant being a truck driver by occupation, on account of the amputation of his right leg below knee would not be able to pursue his occupation as truck driver for rest of his life. That apart, the claimant would suffer physically and mentally the amputation of his right leg for whole of his life. 12) The Apex Court in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh (supra) considered total compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- as just and proper compensation for amputation of a leg of the claimant in the motor accident. 13) The compensation of Rs.1,17,815/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case; the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh (supra); and the fact that the claimant was a truck driver by occupation, in our opinion, is too low and deserves to be enhanced substantially. 14) In our considered opinion, further award of Rs.1,00,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.1,17,815/- MACNo.311 of 2009 awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of the compensation is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.1,00,000/- inclusive.of interest component on theenhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.1,17,815/- awarded by the Tribunal. . 16) Respondent No.3 the United India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositing the total sum of Rs.1,00,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 17) No order as to costs. subbu Sd/- ChiefJustice Sdl- R.N. Chandrakar judge