1 2025:CGHC:54005 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1731 of 2018 1 - Dharmendra Chandrakar S/o Kamal Narayan Chandrakar Aged About 28 Years R/o Aurabhata, Tehsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgrah.........(Claimant), District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Jitendra Kumar Kothari S/o Kaliram Kothari Aged About 35 Years R/o Jungera, Tehsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 2 - Anurag Dubey S/o Laxmi Narayan Dubey Aged About 28 Years R/o Pandey Para Balod, Tehsil And District- Balod, Chhattisgrah., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited Through Office, Parmanand Building, Near Dr. Rajendra Park, Durg, Chhattisgrh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Harshwardhan Singh Thakur, Advocate For Insurance Company For Respondent/Owner : : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Mr. Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/11/2025 Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned awarded dated 31.07.2018 passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, Chhattisgarh in in Claim Case No.01/2017 wherein amount of Rs.3,88,615.00/- along with interest @ 10% per annum was granted in favour of the claimants. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, for necessary disposal of this case are that on 03.07.2015, respondent No. 1, Dharmendra Chandrakar, along with two others, was returning from Dondilohara to Balod on a motorcycle (No. CG-24-1320) when it was hit by a rashly and negligently driven Toyota Innova (No. CG-07-M-0850), resulting in a right knee fracture and other injuries. He underwent surgery, remained hospitalized for 23 days, and suffered 45% permanent disability. An FIR No. 294/15 was registered, and a challan was filed under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC. The injured filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking Rs. 20,75,000/- compensation. The driver and owner denied involvement, while the insurer (appellant) alleged contributory negligence and absence of a valid licence. The Tribunal, after evidence, awarded Rs. 3,88,615/- with 10% interest jointly and severally against the driver, owner, and insurer. 3. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and is manifestly inadequate, warranting enhancement. It is further submitted that while the Tribunal has granted amounts towards 3 medical and treatment expenses, travel, and diet, the compensation for pain and suffering is disproportionately low, and no amount has been granted for future treatment. Accordingly, it is prayed that the compensation awarded be suitably enhanced. In view of this, the appeals filed by the appellant–insurance company may be dismissed, and the quantum of compensation granted to the claimants be appropriately increased. 4. Learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently opposes the submission advanced by the counsel appearing for the claimants and submits that the impugned awards are contrary to the facts, law, and evidence on record. It is contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate that the offending vehicle was inconsistently described as a red-coloured Tavera in the complaint, whereas the registration certificate pertains to a red- coloured Innova, creating serious doubt about the vehicle’s actual involvement. The owner had specifically denied such involvement and clarified that Mr. Jitendra Kumar Kothari was never engaged as a driver. It is further urged that the Tribunal ignored the admitted fact that three persons were riding on the motorcycle and that the rider lacked a valid driving licence, establishing contributory negligence on the part of the claimants. The appellant also disputes the genuineness of the medical bills, which lack proper details, and points out that conveyance charges were wrongly allowed for travel from Balod to Durg though treatment was admittedly taken at Raipur. The Tribunal, it is argued, 4 awarded excessive and unwarranted compensation without following the principles laid down in Rajesh Kumar v. Ajay Kumar (2011) 1 TAC 785 regarding assessment of disability. Relying on United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Shila Dutta (2011 ACJ 2729), counsel contends that the insurer is entitled to challenge both quantum and negligence without permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The appellant, having complied with Section 173 of the Act, prays that the impugned awards be set aside or suitably reduced. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent/owner respectfully opposes the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the insurance company. It is contended that the impugned judgment and awards passed by the learned Tribunal are based on a careful appreciation of the evidence on record, including the FIR, medical documents, and oral testimonies of the witnesses. The Tribunal has duly considered the circumstances of the accident, the extent of injuries sustained by the claimants, and the applicable provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, while awarding just and reasonable compensation, and has rightly fastened the liability. The counsel further submits that there is no infirmity or legal error in the findings of the Tribunal regarding liability or quantum of compensation, and therefore, the impugned awards are liable to be upheld. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the 5 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. 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 6 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 due to the injuries sustained by the appellant, he is required to take future treatment, as such, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards future treatment and Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering are hereby granted as enhanced compensation. 11. Accordingly, the appellant/claimant would become entitled for total compensation of Rs. 5,03,615/- in the following manner:- S.No. Heads Calculation 01 Towards Medical Expenses Rs. 1,05,755/- 02 Towards Special Diet, Attendant and Transportation Rs. 63,000/- 03 Towards Loss of Income Rs. 39,000/- 04 Towards Pain and Suffering Rs. 1,00,000/- 05 Towards Future Treatment Rs. 50,000/- 06 Towards Loss of Future Income Rs. 1,45,860/- Total Rs. 5,03,615/- 12. Thus, the total compensation is recomputed as Rs. 5,03,615/-. After deducting Rs. 3,88,615/- as awarded by the tribunal, the enhancement would be Rs. 1,15,000/-. 13. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be 7 entitled to Rs.1,15,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 10% 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. Certified Copy as per rules. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna