-»B HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAWI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. AoDellant Claimant Resoondents Misc. Appeal (C) No. 482 of2010 Nagendra Yadav son of Kashiram aged about 26 years, occupation Schdol Director and Teacher, resident of village Sonpur, Police Station Surajpur, district Surguja C.G. VERSUS 1 Manoj Sinha son of Indrabhushan Prasad Sinha, aged about 28 years, occupation Agriculture, resident of village Chandarpur (Dhundhava), police station and tahsit Surajpur, district Surguja C.G. 2 Soniya Sinha d/o Rajkishore Sinha, resident of ward No.1, Bhatthipara, Ambikapur, district Surguja C.G. Misc. Appeal under Section 173 ofthe IVIotor Vehicle Act. Present: Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, counsel for the appellant. Shri Surfaraj Khan, counsel for respondent No.1. ORDER (06tnSeptember,2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/ claimant Nagendra Yadav is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, district T M.A.C. No. 482 of 2010 Surguja (for shori: 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 03.11.2009, passed in Claim Case No.118/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs. 10,00,0007- 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 21.10.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation along with interest of Rs.5,000/-. 3) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla and Shri Atanu Ghosh, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.25,000/- only, though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident. 4) Shri Surfaraj Khan, learned counsel for respondent No.1, Manoj Sinha, the motorcyclist ofthe offending motorcycle, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 5) 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. 6) Now, we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and Gircumstances of the present case. w ^ M.A.C. No. 482 of 2010 7) Claimant Nagendra Yadav was 26 years of age on the date of the accident. He was a teacher and was running a private school in village Sonpur, district Surguja. The claimant sustained injuries in the motor accident is borne out from the evidence of AW3 Dr. B.S. Sengar. The disability said to have been suffered by the ctaimant on account of those injuries has been certified to be of temporary nature by AW3 Dr. B.S. Sengar in para 2 of his statement before the Tribunal. Even otherwise, from the admissions of the claimant in his cross-examination before the Tribunal it is apparent that the claimant did not suffer any permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. As such, there was no occasion for the Tribunal for assessment of the compensation on account of the loss in the claimant's future earning capacity. 8) The compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not call for any enhancement in this appeal. 9) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the corripensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation fails and is hereby dismissed. 10) No order as to costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge ei