HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DlVlSION BENCH CORAM: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI N.K. AGARWAL, J. Misc. Appeal (C) No. 1 1 2 of 2008 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Present: Shri Rajendra Patel, counsel for the appellant. Shri Anand Shukla, counsel for respondent No. 1. Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri Ghanshyam Patel, counsel for respondent No.3. The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Appellant . Nayim Khan slo Mehrab Khan Tailor applicant Master, aged about 37 years, r/o Vill. Chhuriya, Tah. & P.S. Chhuriya, dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) VERSUS Respondents 1. Nipendra s/o Shankar Lal Tekam, Non-applicants aged about 30 years, r/o Muharband para, Kanker, P.S. Kanker, distt. v Kanker C.G. Sudha Maya Vishwas, r/o Marfat D.P. Sikdar, Samata Nagar, Kanker, C.G. 3. Branch Manager, the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Kamthi Line, Rajnandgaan C.G. AppeHant/ Claimant’ Nayim Khan is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short ‘the Tribunal') vide award dated 16.08.2007, passed in Claim Case No.51/2006. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.12,56,000/— 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 10.05.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,54,400/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of tiling 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 Nayim Khan sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture in the motor accident on 10.05.2006: the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle Tata lndica Car bearing registration No.C.G.- 05—A/0373; as the above offending vehicle Tata lndica Car on the date of the accident was insured with the Oriental 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 treatment, awarded Rs.15,000/— towards medical expenses, special diet and conveyance; Rs.20,000/— towards pain and suffering; Rs.9,000/— for loss of income during the period of treatment; Rs.50,400l~ towards loss in the future earning capacity; Rs.50,000/— towards non-pecuniary damages on account of the permanent disability; and Rs.10,000/- for future treatment. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.1 ,54,400/- 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 ,54,400/— @ 6% per annum from the date of tiling of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Rajendra Patel, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.1,54,400/~ only though the claimant on account of the injuries and fracture sustained by him in the motor accident and the resultant permanent disability to the extent of 30% has been rendered unht to pursue his occupation as tailor. 7) Shri Abhishek Sinha and Shri G.S. Patel, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental insurance Company Limited, the insurer of the offending vehicle Tata lndica Car, on the other hand, supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.1.54,400l— awarded (by the Tribunal is ‘just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8) Shri Anand Shukla, learned counse! for respondent No.2 Sudha Maya Vishwas, the owner of the offending vehicle Tata Indica 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 of the case lt should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 10) Now we shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,54,400/— awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 11) Claimant Nayim Khan was aged about 37 years on the date of the accident. He was tailor by occupation. The permanent disability certified by the doctor AW3 Anil Mahakalkar to the extent of 30% is in regard to one leg of the claimant and not for the entire body. The permanent disability for the entire body would be around 10-12% only in View of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another, reported in (2011) 1 SCC — 343, wherein the permanent disability of 45% certified by the doctor for one of the limbs was taken to be 20% of the whole body. 12) The compensation of Rs.1,54,400/— awarded by the Tribunal when examined in the context of the above mentioned broad features of the case and the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of subbu Raj Kumar Vs. Ajay Kumar and another (supra), we are satisfied, does not can for any enhancement in this appeal. 13) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeai med by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation is liabfe to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 14) No order as to costs. sch, IV v$cnZ Chlef ' Justlce ' 'K‘Aganwag Jadge