1 2025:CGHC:57346 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 686 of 2018 1 - Gopal Kumar Chandrakar (Dead) Through Lrs Lalita Chandrakar W/o Late Shri Gopal Chandrakar Aged About 60 Years R/o Khairagarh, Amlipara, Ward No.12, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Sandeep Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Gopal Chandrakar Aged About 40 Years R/o Khairagarh, Amlipara, Ward No.12, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Satish Chandrakar S/o Late Shri Gopal Chandrakar Aged About 34 Years R/o Khairagarh, Amlipara, Ward No.12, Tahsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 4 - Mamta Deshmukh W/o Sitamra Deshmukh Aged About 37 Years R/o Chikli, Ward No.05, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Claimants), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Hemuram Kanwar S/o Sunder Singh Kanwar Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Barga, P.S. Labagh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh (Driver Of The Vehicle), District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s Ram Niwas Agrawal Firm Proprietor Rajendra Kumar Agrawal ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 S/o Ramniwas Agrawal, R/o Near Railway Station, Naila, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh (Owner Of Vehicle), District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh 3 - Branch Manager United India Insurance Company Limited, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of The Vehicle), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Advocate. For Respondents No.1 & 2 : Mr. Deepak Diwakar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25.11.2025 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 30.01.2018 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), in Claim Case No.251 of 2014 whereby compensation of Rs. 1,96,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, a motor accident that occurred on 21.09.2013. It was pleaded that on the said date, while traveling on his motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-12-N-2647 along with his wife near GE Road, NH 6, at Barga Chowk at approximately 5:00 p.m., the deceased’s motorcycle was struck from behind by a tractor bearing registration No. CG-04-DB-2126, 3 which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner, causing severe injuries to his right knee, left hand, back, chest, and other parts of his body. The deceased was hospitalized at District Hospital, Rajnandgaon from 21.09.2013 to 07.03.2014, with further treatment at Bhilai and Raipur, during which a rod was inserted in his right leg, and he sustained 50% permanent disability. A police case (Cr. No. 322/13) was registered at Lalbagh Police Station under Sections 279, 337, and 338 IPC. The deceased subsequently passed away on 22.11.2015, and the appellants, as his legal heirs, continued prosecution of the claim petition. The respondents filed separate written statements, denying the averments; Non-applicant No.1 contended that the deceased was at fault for driving on the wrong side of the road, Non-applicant No.2 denied liability under the insurance policy and attributed the death to other ailments, and Non-applicant No.3 contended that the driver had violated the insurance terms, absolving the insurer of liability. The learned Claims Tribunal, after framing six issues, examining the evidence, and hearing the parties, awarded a meager compensation of Rs. 1,96,000/- under various heads, directing Non-applicant No.3 to pay the same to the appellants, which is substantially lower than the claim amount and does not adequately reflect the loss suffered. 3. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,86,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards special diet. Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs.1,96,000/- has been 4 granted in favour of the appellant/claimant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,96,000/- 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 appellant and perused the material available on record. 7. Although the appellants/claimants (legal heirs of the deceased) have filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the award on the ground that the insured later died, a perusal of the record and the evidence on record indicates that it has not been established that the insured’s death was caused by the injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the appeal cannot be entertained on the ground of death, and the matter is to be treated as a case of injury. 8. 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, 5 nor a Bonanza. 9. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,96,000/- 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." 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case at 6 hand, the amounts of Rs.1,50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,50,000/- towards future treatment would be enhance as such the award is modified to the extent :- Sn. Heads Calculation 01. Pain and Suffering Rs.1,50,000/- 02. Future Treatment Rs.1,50,000/- Total Rs.3,00,000/- 12. The compensation amount of Rs.1,96,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced to Rs.3,00,000/-. Accordingly, after deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,04,000/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the appeal, payable within a period of 60 days. All other terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award shall remain intact. 13. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in-part. No order as to costs. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena