1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 480 of 2017 1 - Smt. Shashi Goswami Wd/o Santoshpuri Goswami, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Pendri Tarai, Tahsil And District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ..............Claimant, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Omkar Prasad Sahu S/o Peelaram Sahu, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Devri Sarda, Police Station, Tahsil Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ...............Driver Of Swaraj Majda No. C.G.04 J C 1193, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Chhannu Lal Sahu S/o Dayaram Sahu, R/o Village Bargaon, Tahsil, Police Station Berla, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ...............Owner Of Swaraj Majda No. C.G.04 J C 1193, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Address- Divisional Office-1 Raipur, Madina Manjil, Kutchari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...............Insurer Of Swaraj Majda No. C.G.04 J C 1193, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sudhir Verma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 30/01/2026 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 by the appellant/claimant for enhancement against the award dated 28.1.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District-Bemetara (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 143/2015 whereby compensation of Rs. 1,99,178/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, appellant is the widow of late Santoshpuri Goswami, who was the claimant in Claim Case No. 143/2015, and that Santoshpuri Goswami expired on 21.01.2017, as evidenced by his death certificate. It is further submitted that in the said accident, late Santoshpuri Goswami sustained multiple fracture injuries and underwent three surgical operations, namely, the first on his knee, the second on his arm, and the third on his waist. Despite treatment, he could not regain his ability to walk, as a result of which his agricultural business, particularly his harvester business, was severely affected. He owned three harvesters and earned approximately Rs. 9,00,000/- in one agricultural season; however, the learned Tribunal has awarded only Rs. 15,000/- under this head, which is grossly inadequate. 3. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,16,040/- towards 3 medical expenses, Rs. 30,088/- towards medicine expenses, Rs. 11,250/- towards medicine expenses, Rs. 6,000/- towards loss of estate, Rs. 15,000/- towards loss of income, Rs. 5,500/- towards attendant, Rs. 3,300/- towards healthy food, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and Rs. 2,000/- towards transportation. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 1,99,178/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant/claimant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,99,178/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. He further submits that the awarded compensation by the Tribunal is on the lower side. Therefore, the compensation amount may be enhanced suitably. Hence, this appeal may be allowed and awarded amount needs to be enhanced suitably. 5. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 6. None for respondents No. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 8. In a motor accident claim case, what is important is that, the compensation to be awarded by the Courts/Tribunals should be 4 just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Hare Krushna Mahanta vs. Himadari Sahu & Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 262 has observed as under:- “9. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is borne from the record that the Claimant-Appellant had agreed on the additional consolidated sum granted by the High Court. It is imperative for this Court, however, to reiterate that despite such consent, the objective when granting compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is to ensure just and fair compensation is paid to the aggrieved party. This came to be reiterated by this Court recently in Meena Devi v. Nunu Chand Mahto reported in (2023) 1 SCC 204, wherein it was observed:” "17. The Tribunal/Court ought to award "just" compensation which is reasonable in the facts relying upon the evidence produced on record. Therefore, less valuation, if any, made in the claim petition would not be impediment to award just compensation exceeding the claimed amount." 5 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 10,000/- towards transportation and Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet are hereby enhanced. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 1,20,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6% from the date of enhancement of the award till its realization. The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna