1 2025:CGHC:53992 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 373 of 2018 1 - Itwari S/o S/o Devprasad Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Kurda, District- Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh. Presently R/o Village Dhatura, Tahsil Pali, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. .............(Claimant)., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Bharat Kumar Yadav S/o S/o Samunda Yadav, Aged About 23 Years R/o Amartal, Police Station Janjgir, District- Janjgri- Champa, Chhattisgarh. ...............(Non- Applicant)., District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh 2 - M/s Kolmen, Vidya Nagar Bilaspur, Tahsil And District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Division Office, Geetanjali Bhavan, Main Road, Korba, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : None. For Respondents No.1 & 2 For Respondents No.3 : : None. Mr. H. S. Patel, Advocate ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 04.11.2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the award dated 04.01.2018 passed by the learned Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.), presided over by Shri Prashant Parashar, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 77/2010 titled Itwari vs. Bharat Kumar Yadav & Others, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation amount of ₹2,52,846/–, the appellant/claimant, being dissatisfied with the said award, has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation on the following facts and grounds. 2. Facts of the case for necessary disposal of this case, if brief, are that The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, aged about 45 years, was engaged in the business of cloth trading and earning an income of ₹12,500 per month. It has been stated that on 29.03.2010, at about 7:30 p.m., near Chhuiya Talab, Village Kurda, Tahsil and District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), the driver, while driving truck bearing registration No. CG-10 M- 0103 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bicycle of the injured, namely Itwari, causing the accident. As a result, the claimant sustained grievous injuries, including a fracture near the right wrist, dislocation of the shoulder, and severe crushing injuries to the leg, leading to multiple fractures 3 and subsequent amputation of the leg during treatment to save his life. The applicant suffered immense physical pain, sustained other serious bodily injuries, and became permanently disabled, rendering him incapable of walking or carrying out his occupation. He underwent treatment at B.D.M. Hospital, Champa; Dr. G.K. Nayak, Champa; Sims Hospital, Bilaspur; Indira Gandhi Hospital, Korba; and Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur. It has been further stated that the claimant(s) treatment is still continuing and that he has already incurred an expenditure of about ₹2,00,000 towards medical treatment, transportation, nutritious diet, and other related expenses, with an estimated additional expenditure of ₹1,00,000, thereby bringing the total estimated cost of treatment to ₹3,00,000. The offending vehicle, truck bearing registration No. CG-10 M-0103, was being driven by Respondent No. 1 at the time of the accident, owned by Respondent No.2, and insured with Respondent No. 3. 3. None for the appellant/claimant. 4. No representation was also made on behalf of the driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 5. Learned counsel for the insurance company respectfully submits that the impugned award dated 04.01.2018 passed by the learned Claims Tribunal is perverse, erroneous, and contrary to the facts, law, and evidence available on record. 4 The learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that the driver of the offending truck, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. The appellant insurance company had duly obtained and placed on record the surveyor’s report, which clearly mentioned that on the date of the accident the driver was not in possession of the valid and effective driving licence to operate the offending vehicle. Furthermore, it is evident from the challan filed by the investigating agency that driver was charge-sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 3/181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, and he did not produce any evidence before the Tribunal to prove the validity of his licence. The learned Tribunal also erred in assessing 70% permanent disability of claimant without any cogent or reliable medical evidence. Consequently, the award of compensation is on the higher side, arbitrary, and deserves to be set aside in the interest of justice. 6. I have heard learned counsel at bar and perused the documents available on record with utmost circumspection. 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 5 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 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 and also considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 50,000/- towards loss of amenities and lastly 6 Rs.50,000/- is awarded for future treatment and the amount of compensation are hereby enhanced. Sn. Heads Compensation 01 Loss of Income Rs.1,85,161/- 02 Medical Rs.57,685/- 03 Pain & Sufferings Rs.50,000/- 04 Future Treatment Rs.50,000/- 05 Loss of Amenities Rs.50,000/- Total Rs.3,92,846/- 11. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs.3,92,846/- from Rs.2,52,846/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.1,40,000/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal from the date of claim petition till realization. 12. The Registry is further directed to communicate the claimants in writing “the enhanced amount” in this appeal as against the amount awarded by the Tribunal. The said communication be made in Hindi Deonagri language and the help of paralegal workers may be availed of the concerned area wherein the claimants resides. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena