1 2025:CGHC:45291 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1654 of 2018 1 - Omprakash Gandhi S/o Late Kishan Gopal Gandhi Aged About 50 Years R/o Maheshwaripara Sukma Police Station Sukma District Sukma Chhattisgarh., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Maniram Nag S/o Laikhan Ram Nag Aged About 30 Years R/o Naharpara Tongpal Police Station Tongpal District Sukma Chhattisgarh...............Driver Of The Vehicle., District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Forest Division, Additional P C F Campa Arny Bhawan Jain Road Raipur Through D F O Sukma District Sukma Chhattisgarh......................(Owner Of The Vehicle), District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Appellant(s) : Mr. Abhishek Nirala, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Pravin Kumar Tulsyan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Abhishek Singh, Advocate. For Respondent No. 2/State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Pandey, G.A. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/09/2025 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 25.7.2018 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, South Bastar, Dantewada (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 16/2017 whereby compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the respondents were the driver and owner, respectively, of the vehicle Bolero bearing registration No. C.G.-02-5132 at the relevant time of the accident. On 19.11.2015, the appellant/claimant was going to his school on his motorcycle when the said vehicle, driven rashly and negligently from the opposite direction, collided with his motorcycle, causing him severe injuries on various parts of his body, including 3 fractures in his right hand, both legs, and thumb, resulting in 50% permanent disability as certified by Dr. L.N. Thakur (A.W.11), with the disability certificate exhibited as A-1. The matter was reported to the concerned Police Station, where a criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1 and a charge sheet was filed before the concerned Court. Immediately after the accident, the appellant was admitted to District Hospital Sukma, from where he was referred for higher treatment and admitted to Krishna Orthopedic Hospital, Kottaguda, for 6 days, thereafter at Krishna Institute, Sikandarabad, for 2 months, and subsequently at Bansal Nursing Home for 30 days, followed by rest at home. The appellant, who was working as a teacher earning Rs. 43,000/- per month, could not work properly due to the injuries. After service of notice in the claim case, the respondents appeared before the Claims Tribunal and resisted the claim. The Claims Tribunal, after framing five issues, recording the evidence adduced by the claimant, and perusing the material on record, finally, vide award dated 25.07.2018, awarded a compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,40,000/-. 3. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,40,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 50,000/- towards future aspect, Rs. 50,000/- towards inconvenient and Rs. 50,000/- towards assistant. Thus, a total 4 compensation of Rs. 4,40,000/- 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. 4,40,000/- 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, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the same. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7. 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. It should neither be a meager amount of compensation, nor a Bonanza. 8. 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. 5 9. 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." 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities are hereby enhanced. 11. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be 6 entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- 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 Raghu Jat