1 2025:CGHC:54007 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 414 of 2018 1 - Ku. Asha Kenwat @ Asha Nishad D/o Shri Ramlal Kenwat Aged About 22 Years R/o Near Sanskar Bharti School, Dingapur, Chowki Rampur, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh (Claimant), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Ankita Sahu D/o Nandlal Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Bhainso, Police Station Pamgarh, District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh, At Present Quarter No. 1470, New Kashinagar, Chowki Rampur, District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 2 - The New India Insurance Company Limited Through The Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Limited, Office Sada Complex, Near Taxi Stand, T.P.Nagar, Korba, Tahsil And District Korba, Chhattisgarh, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : None. For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Sudhir Agrawal, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04/11/2025 RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 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 15.12.2017 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 20/2017 whereby compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- with interest @ 7% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the claimant/appellant filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,82,000/- from the respondents under various heads on account of grievous multiple injuries sustained by her in a road accident. On 21.01.2017, in the evening, while she was returning to her house and had reached near the Collectorate Office, respondent No. 1, driving the offending motorcycle bearing No. CG-12-AL-9949 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her, causing grievous injuries on her head and other parts of her body, for which she was initially admitted to the District Hospital, Korba, and was thereafter referred to New Korba Hospital, where she remained under treatment from 21.01.2017 to 15.02.2017. After service of notice, the respondents filed their written statement and denied the claim. Ultimately, after hearing both parties, the learned Claims Tribunal, by the impugned award dated 15.12.2017, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,30,000/- only in favour of the claimant. 3 3. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 70,000/- towards treatment & medical expenses, Rs. 35,000/- towards loss of income during bed ridden period, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 10,000/- towards nutritious food and Rs. 5,000/- towards travelling expenses. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 1,30,000/- 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. 1,30,000/- 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, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 2 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 No. 1. 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, 4 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 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. 35,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 20,000/- towards special diet and Rs. 15,000/- 5 towards transportation are hereby enhanced. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 70,000/- 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