HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar, MA(C(No.327of2008 APPELLANT Kishan Pandey. RESPONDENTS Vereus Bharat Ram Mandavi and another. ORDER For Pronouncement of Order ^ig.06.2011 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar ~\ ^;'si^^iSi-£^ •^:/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANW^W. J. APPELLANT CLA1MANT RESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS Misc. Appeal (C) No. 327 of 2008 Kishan Pandey, S/o Late Amar Singh Pandey, Aged about 51 years, R/o Village Vishrampuri Chowki Vishrampuri, Keshkal, District Bastar (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Bharat Ram Mandavi, S/o Rajaram Mandavi, R/o Village Kokpur, Police Station Kanker, (CG) 2. The Orientel Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (CG) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appearance: Shri Vikram Dixit, counsel for the appellant. Shri Dilip Singh, counsel for respondent No.1. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel fer respondsnt No.2. Y;: ORDER (Passedonfi'6 .06.2011) This is clafmant's appeat seeking enhancement of compensation of Rs.25000/- awarded in jury case by the Additional Motor Aecidents Glaims Tribunal (FTC), Kondagaon, Bastar (for short 'Claims Tribunal') in claim case No. 10/20)7 vide order dated 26.12.2007. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.59,12,000/- claimed by the appellanVclaimant by filing ctaim petition under Setfon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11.01.2004, the Tribunal, on close scrutiny ofthe evidence, material placed and respective submissions of the parties, held that due to rash and negligeM driving of driver of motor cycle bearing No. C.G. 19 B 1562 (for short "the offending vehicle"), the appellant hadsustained injuries and as the offending vehicle was insured w'rth the insurance company/respondent, the insurance company i.e. The Oriental Insurance Company Llmited was also liable to pay compensation to the claimant. Y 3. Leamed counsel for the appellant / claimant submitted that the learned Claims Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.25,000/- only whereas the learned Claims Tribunal should have saflsfied the claimant suitably. 4. On the other hand, leamed counsel appearing for r^pondent No.3 argued that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensaUon, and therefore, need not be interferred with. 5. I have heard leamed counsel appearir^ for the parties and hava perused the impugned award including record. 6. In a motor aceident claim case, what is mportant is that the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunats 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. 1 shsril iww examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and fiair compensation in Uie facts and circumstanc^ of the presentcase. 7. It is ctear from the evidence of the appellantfclaimant- Kishan Pandey that he is a peUy shop keeper and was eaming Rs.15,000/- per month. It is clear from his pleadings and evtelence that on 11.1.2004 when he was coming with one Jagdish Jain on his motor cycle, at forest cotony ofRce, the driver of motor cycle i.e., Jagdish Jain reduced its speed afler seeing a truck coming from opposite and at the same Bme, respondent No.1, whe was coming on his motor cycle bearing No. C.G. 19 B 1562 (for short "offending vehicle") in a rash and negligent manner, dashed the motor cycte of Jagdish Jain, as a result of which, both Jagdish Jain and the appellant sustained injures including frartureon left knee and skull, as is apparent fro»n Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4. It is also clear that the appellant was hospitafeed for a period of 25 days, as is eviderrt from pteadings of the claimant 8. On accourrt of injuries suslained by the appeBant in the motor acciderrt on 4.7.2006, definitely the appellant eould have suffered mental agony, pain and suffering and could not have perfoirned his duties fer a period of 2S days, resulting in monetary loss to him. Documents Ex.P.7 to Ex.P.18 are medical prescriptions, which ctearly revealed that the appeltant has Incurred 1 /J expenses substantially for consuming medicines. The aforesaid documents also clearly revealed that for curing injuries and fracture sustoined by him in the motor accident he has taken better treatment and during such treahnent, he might have also incurred expenses on attendant and special diet The Tribunal apparently has fallen into error \y not awarding any sum towards loss of income during the period of treatment, conv^ance, attendant, and special diet; It is a matter of common knowledge ttiat substantial amount is required to be spent on the treatment of fractures. 9. In view of the above, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awaided by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above menttoned braad features of the case, in my opinion, is certainly on the lower side and deserves to be enhanced suitably. 10. Considering all the relevant aspects of the matter, 1 am of the opinion that further award of Rs.31,000/- indusive of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation would make the compensatfon of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunat as justand proper compensafion in the facts and ciroumstances ofthe present case. 11. The appeal fited by the appellant / claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is allowed in part. The claimant is awarded further sum of Rs.31,000/- induswe of interest component on the enhanced amount of compensation in addition to the sum of Rs55,OOQ/- swarded by the Tribunal. 12. Respondent No.2 - Oriental Insurance Company is grantedthree months time for depositing the total sum of Rs.31,(XX)/-, in addiUon to the sum of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Trfcunal, before the conceming Ctalms Tribunal. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhauiwar Judge 'S.