1 2025:CGHC:57364 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1596 of 2018 1 - Sanjeev Shrivastava S/o Ramesh Kumar Shrivastava Aged About 42 Years R/o Smriti Nagar Bhilai, Supela, P.S. Supela, District Durg. At Present R/o C/o R.K. Shrivastava, Devnandan Nagar, Phase - I, Near Maurya Garden, Post Office Secl, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. 495006. (Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bhupender Singh S/o Shri Seva Singh Aged About 27 Years R/o Gurudwara Shri Guru Amardas Dhamtari Road Devpuri, Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Driver Of Tata S No. Cg-04 Jd 5568) - 492001., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Mo. Shoeb Aalam S/o Shri Mo. Shakirruddin, R/o Railway Loco Colony Gudiyari, Police Station Gudiyari, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Of Tata S No. Cg - 04 Jd 5568) - 492001., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R. L. Rajak, 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 ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 against the award dated 20.06.2018 passed by the learned 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (C.G.), in Claim Case No.526 of 2015 whereby compensation of Rs. 39.330/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 22.01.2015 at approximately 10:30 a.m. on the Raipur - Mahasamund Highway near SBI. In the petition, it was pleaded that the Appellant/Claimant was walking on the service road of National Highway Ring Road No.1 to attend his office at IDBI Federal Life Insurance Company when the vehicle bearing registration No. TATA S No. CG 04 JD 5568, due to the rash and negligent driving of its driver, struck him, resulting in severe injuries that necessitated hospitalization at Shri Medishine Hospital for 15 days. Consequently, the Appellant/Claimant sought compensation of Rs. 8,25,000/- from the respondents. Upon receipt of the claim petition, the Tribunal registered the matter as Claim Case No. 526/2015 and issued notices to the respondents; only Respondent No.1, the driver, appeared and filed a reply denying the claim, whereas Respondent No.2, the owner of the offending vehicle, remained ex parte. The Tribunal framed issues and recorded evidence from the parties; however, by its order dated 20.06.2018, the learned Tribunal, without proper appreciation of the evidence and materials on record, awarded a meager sum of Rs. 39,330/- with 7.5% interest from the date of filing of the claim petition. The 3 award thus made is grossly inadequate, failing to reflect the actual loss and suffering of the Appellant/Claimant, and is liable to be modified and enhanced. 3. The Tribunal has awarded total sum of Rs.39,330/-, Rs.4,330/- towards medical expenses, Rs.15,000/- towards special diet, Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards transportation, Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs.39,330/- has been granted in favour of the appellant/claimant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 39,330/- 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. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 6. 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. 7. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of 4 Rs. 39,330/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 8. 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." 9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the amounts of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medial bills, Rs.25,000/- towards special diet, Rs.50,000/- towards pain and suffering and 5 Rs.10,000/- towards transportation would be enhance as such the award is modified to the extent :- Sn. Heads Calculation 01. Pain and Suffering Rs.50,000/- 02. For Medical Bills Rs.1,00,000/- 03. For Special diet Rs.25,000/- 04. For Transportation Rs.10,000/- Total Rs.1,85,000/- 10. The compensation amount of Rs.39,330/- awarded by the Tribunal is hereby enhanced to Rs.1,85,000/-. Accordingly, after deducting the amount already awarded, the claimant shall be entitled to a sum of Rs.1,45,670/-, which shall carry interest at the rate of 7.5% 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. 11. Consequently, the appeal is allowed in-part. No order as to costs. Certified Copy as per rules. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena