1 025:CGHC:54008 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1814 of 2018 1 - Dharmendra Kumar Dhruv S/o Patiram Dhruv Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Chorha Bhaina (Patpar) Police Station Bilha, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Narendra Kumar Sande S/o Naindas Sande Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Datrengi, Police Station Bhatapara, Gramin, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Offending Vehicle Aumper Bearing Registration No. C.G. - 10-A-9914) ., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Sevakram Donde S/o Chaitram Donde Aged About 32 Years R/o Village - Datrengi, Police Station Bhatapara Gramin, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Offending Vehicle Dumper Bearing Registration No. C.G.-10-A-9914)., District : Balodabazar- Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office, Main Road, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Offending Vehicle Dumper Bearing Registration No. C.G. - 10-A-9914)., District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. G.V. Kutumba Rao, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Raj Awasthi, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/11/2025 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 4.8.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhatapara, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 43/2015 whereby compensation of Rs. 2,79,037/- with interest @ 9% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 15.07.2015 at about 3:00 p.m., the appellant, along with his friend Dinesh Kumar Dhruv, was traveling on a motorcycle from village Chorha Bhaina (Patpar) to village Borsi to attend a chhatthi programme. When they reached near Arjuni Housing Board Colony, their motorcycle was hit by a dumper truck bearing registration number CG-10-A-9914. As a result of the accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his head, face, right hand, and right leg. He was initially admitted to the Government Hospital, Baloda Bazar, and thereafter referred 3 to Narayana Hospital, Raipur, where he underwent treatment from 15.07.2015 to 27.07.2015. The non-applicants Nos. 1 and 2 filed their written statement contending that the driver possessed a valid driving license and that the dumper truck was duly insured with non-applicant No. 3. The non-applicant No. 3, in its written statement, alleged contributory negligence on the part of the motorcyclist and contended that liability should be apportioned equally between both parties. After considering the pleadings, evidence, and material available on record, the learned Tribunal awarded a meager compensation amounting to Rs. 2,79,037/-. 3. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,45,037/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 50,000/- towards mental and physical agony, Rs. 24,000/- towards loss of income, Rs. 10,000/- towards special diet and travelling expenses and Rs. 50,000/- towards other heads. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 2,79,037/- 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. 2,79,037/- 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 4 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 respondent Nos. 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 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 5 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 and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 20,000 towards special diet and Rs. 50,000/- towards future treatment 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 Raghu Jat