1 2025:CGHC:61019 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 333 of 2018 1 - Behru Chhura S/o Patwari Chhura, Aged About 47 Years R/o Village Malpada, Post Kantabhanji, District- Balangir, Odisha, Present R/o Sector-10, Street 21, Quarter No. 5-A, Bhilai Tehsil And District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ashwani Kharsal S/o S/o Jagbandhu Kharsal Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Gambhariguda, Post Sinhapali, District- Nayapada, Odisha. (Driver Of Vehicle Gvw Max Pickup No. Or-26-2303), District : Nuapada *, Orissa 2 - Chatur Bagh S/o S/o Abhiram Bagh R/o Pokerpod, Post- Kharsiyad, District- Nayapada, Odisha.(Registered Owner Of Vehicle Gvw Max Pickup No. Or- 26- 2303)., District : Nuapada *, Orissa 3 - (A) Branch Manager, Bajaj Aliyanj General Insurance Company, Ltd. Shivmohan Bhawan/ Complex, 2nd Floor, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandari Raipur, Tehsil And District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 3.1 - (B) Branch Manager, Bajaj Aliyanj General Insurance Complex, Ltd. Giriraj Complex, Satanand Chambers, 1st Floor Shop No. 212-213, Station Road, Durg, Chhattisgarh (Insurer Of Vehicle Gvw Max Pickup No. Or- 26-2303)., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Amit Tamrakar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 15.12.2025 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 25.10.2017 passed by the learned 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, District Durg (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 125/2010 whereby compensation of Rs. 3,80,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case :- The appellant seeking compensation to the tune of ₹9,40,000/- from the respondents under various heads on account of the grievous injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident allegedly caused due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1, asserting that he was working under a private contractor and earning ₹5,000/- per month. It was pleaded that on 25.03.2009, the appellant, along with his family members, was travelling to Village Junain in a Max Pick-up vehicle bearing registration No. OR-26-2303, which, while being driven by respondent No.1 in a rash and negligent manner, overturned near Village Junain, as a result whereof the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his head, mouth, ear, legs, shoulder and other parts of the body, and during the course of treatment his right leg had to be amputated above the knee, causing permanent 3 disability. It was further averred that due to the said permanent disability, the appellant has been rendered incapable of performing his work. The learned Claims Tribunal, after hearing the parties, assessed the notional annual income of the appellant at ₹36,000/-, determined the functional disability at 60% and consequently computed the loss of earning capacity at ₹21,600/- per annum, and by applying the multiplier of 13, awarded ₹2,80,800/- towards loss of future income, in addition to ₹20,000/- each towards medical treatment, physical and mental pain and suffering, transportation, special diet and attendant charges, thereby granting a total compensation of ₹3,80,800/- for the injuries sustained in the accident. The learned Tribunal, however, exonerated the insurance company on the ground that the offending vehicle, being registered for carriage of goods, was being used in violation of the terms of the insurance policy, giving rise to the present appeal. 3. The tribunal has awarded a sum towards loss of Income during admission Rs.2,80,000/-, towards treatment Rs.20,000/-, towards pain and suffering Rs.20,000/-, towards transportation Rs.20,000/-, towards special diet Rs.20,000/- and towards attendant Rs.20,000/-. Thus, a total compensation of Rs.3,80,000/- has been awarded in favor of the appellant/claimant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal 4 has awarded a sum of Rs.3,80,000/- 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 parties and perused the 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 5 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." 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, the injured has sustained and was admitted in Hospital, further keeping in mind the injury sustained by injured, was advised for bed rest and treatment, pain and suffering, transportation, special diet and attendant would be enhance as such the award is modified to the extent :- Sn. Heads Calculation 01 For Treatment Rs.25,000/- 02 For Healthy Diet Rs.20,000/- 03 For Pain & Suffering Rs.30,000/- 04 Loss of Income during Treatment Rs.2,80,800/- 05 For Attendant Rs.25,000/- 06 For Transportation Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.4,00,800/- 6 11. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.4,00,800/- from Rs.3,80,800/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.20,000/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. Though, in the present case, the insurance company stands exonerated on account of the offending vehicle having been plied in contravention of the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, however, having due regard to the benevolent nature of the legislation and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and further considering the fact that the owner and driver of the offending vehicle have neither appeared before this Court nor challenged the liability fastened upon them, this Court is of the considered opinion that the insurance company shall satisfy the award in the first instance, with liberty to recover the same from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. It is further directed that if any amount has already been deposited by the owner, the insurance company shall be liable to deposit only the remaining balance amount. 12. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 25.10.2017 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena