1 2025:CGHC:59831 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 826 of 2018 1 - Smt. Seema Dewangan W/o Late Dhananjay Dewangan Aged About 25 Years R/o Sargipal , District Kondagaon Chhattisgarh., District : Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - Moh Shammi S/o Shri Fakeer Mohammad Aged About 42 Years R/o Behind Mazar , Gandhi Nagar, Old Bhilai - 3, District Durg Chhattisgarh. ( Driver Of Vehicle No. C G 07 E - 9007 ), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manish Travels Through Manish Kumar Jain, S/o Bhagchand Jain, New Bus Stand Durg Minimata Chowk, Pulgaon Durg Chhattisgarh. ( Owner Of Vehicle No. C G 07 E - 9007 ), District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 3 - The Oriental Insurance Company Limited , Through The Divisional Manager, Mandir Building Jail Road Raipur Chhattisgarh. ( Insurer Of Vehicle No. C G 07 E - 9007), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Resp. No. 3 : Mr. Bennoon, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. R. N. Pusty, Advocate (Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge) Order on Board 09/12/2025 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, against the award dated 09.02.2018 passed by the Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 learned First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 645/2015 whereby an amount of Rs. 4,69,827/- with interest @ 9% per annum has been awarded in the favour of the claimants of the deceased for their irreparable loss. 2. Brief facts of the case, giving rise to the present claim petition, are that respondent No.3 is the Insurance Company, respondent No.2 is the owner, and respondent No.1 is the driver of the offending bus involved in the accident. The appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 56,50,000/- for the injuries sustained in a road accident. According to the appellant, on 22.04.2015, she was travelling with her husband, Dhananjay Dewangan, and other relatives in Car No. CG 04 H 6877, returning from a marriage ceremony from Raipur to Sargipal, Kondagaon. When the car reached National Highway No. 30 near Birejhar Chouki, the offending bus No. CG 07 E 9007, being driven rashly and negligently, collided with the car, causing the death of Dhananjay Dewangan and grievous injuries to the appellant, including injuries to her right leg, chest, and cheek. Respondents No.1 and 2 remained ex parte before the Claims Tribunal, while Respondent No.3 filed its reply denying liability and alleging that the car was being driven in breach of the insurance policy conditions. After recording evidence, the Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 4,69,827/- by award dated 09.02.2018. Dissatisfied with the 3 quantum, the appellant has preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of the award on various grounds, including improper assessment of injuries, disability, treatment expenses, future income loss, and permanent disability of 53% proved through medical evidence. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants/claimants submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,69,827/- 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. 4. On the other hand, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondents that in the facts and circumstances of case, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no further enhancement. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties 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. 4 7. 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. 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, a sum of Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 25,000/- towards future treatment are hereby enhanced. 5 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 75,000/- 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/- Shayna (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE