c HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Appeal No. 1258 of 2005 Appellant : Munna Sen aged 35 years, s/o Kirplal Sen, occupation working as a Maali at Vivekanand Vidhya Peeth, r/o Kota Raipur C.G. Respondents VERSUS 1 Shailendra Kumar Verma, aged 34 years, s/o amreshchand Verma, r/o Lota Karkhana, near Samta Bhavan gudhiari, Raipur, distt. Raipur C.G. 2 Amreshchand Verma, s/o late Mukhar Singh Verma, r/o Lota Karkhana near Samta Bhavan Gudhiari, Raipur C.G. 3 The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Katcheri Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur C.G. Memo of Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri S.K. Guha, counsel for the appellant. Smt. M. Asha, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel for respondent No.3. '?' ORDER (4th May, 2011) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant/ Claimant Munna Sen is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 11 Additional Motor Accident WK. ^' ^ ^ .^' ' ':"^ c c.. L. <7 . Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.06.2005, passed in Claim Case No.86/2004. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.11,00,000/- 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 09.01.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,000/- 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 Munna Sen sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident on 09.01.2004; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Hyundai Accent Car bearing registration No.C.G.04B-8049; as the above offending vehicle Hyundai Accent Car on the date of the accident was insured with the New 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 been spent on • fi;"% 1 I. . "Tl /" ^ %.^J^./ '%^;ttess^ ^' c c f < treatment, awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses; Rs.3,000/- towards loss of income during the period oftreatment; and Rs.2,000/- towards pain and suffering. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.15,000/- 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.15,000/- @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri S.K. Guha, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.15,000/- only though the appellanVclaimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 32%. 7) Shri Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Hyundai Accent Car, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarde'd' by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Smt. M. Asha, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, Shailendra Kumar Verma, the owner of the offending vehicle Hyundai Accent Car, 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 \^,;;.^:" • ^ ^ J'ti1, '%^'^y.' ""^s^^"' .-^ c ^,. ^.., •c. of the case. It shoutd neither be a meager amount of compensation, nora Bonanza. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. 11) Claimant Munna Sen was aged about 35 years on the date of the accident. He was a gardener by occupation. Though the accident is said to have taken place on 09.01.2004, the disability certificate produced before the Tribunal (Ex.P/1) was issued by AW2 Dr. G.S. Bachhu after more than one year of the accident on 25.04.2005. Dr. G.S. Bachhu admitted in his evidence before the Tribunal that he never treated claimant Munna Sen for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. Nevertheless, it is established from the material available on record that claimant Munna Sen sustained fracture of his left leg in the motor accident. It is a matter of common knowledge that substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. The claimant on account of the fracture of his left leg could not have performed his duties as gardener for a period of about 4 to 6 months, resulting in monetary loss to him. 12) The compensation of Rs. 15.000/- awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned brbad features of the case, in our opinion, is somewhat on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced to some extent. 13) Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the opinion that further award of Rs. 11,0007- inclusive of ^^ ^' -I . • •". '•^111 90^%'/; ^" c subbu ^. interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensation of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 14) The appeal filed by the appellanV claimant for enhancement of thecompensation, therefore, isallowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sumof Rs.11,000/- inclusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 15) Respondent No.3 the New India Insurance Company Limited is granted three months' time for depositingthe total sum of Rs.11,000/- before the concerning Claims Tribunal. 16) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.L. Jhawar Judge <.-<.