1 2025:CGHC:58732 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 900 of 2018 1 - Rajjan Sisodiya S/o Devkumar Sisodiya Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Matiyari Bshikari Mohalla District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Claimant), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Tara Chand Patel S/o Sadhram Patel, Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Hardadih Thana Seepat Tahsil And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Owner Cum Driver Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero No. C.G.10/t/1296). (Owner Cum Driver), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Main Office E - 8 Ricko Industrial Area Sitapur District Jaipur (Rajsthan) 302022., District : Jaipur, Rajasthan 3 - Branch Manager, Shriram General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Plot No. 1 4th Floor In Front Of Maruti Heights Skai Auto Near Mobile Shop G.E. Road Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer Of The Offending Vehicle Bolero No. C.G. 10/t/1296). (Note Wrongly Mentioned Of District Bilaspur Instead Of Raipur. (Insurer), District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Shalini Jangde, Advocate on behalf of Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 : Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : None. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 03/12/2025 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 10.4.2018 passed by the learned 3rd Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 270/2014 whereby compensation of Rs. 1,02,840/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the learned Claims Tribunal, pleading inter alia that on 21.01.2014, at the relevant time of accident, he was riding his motorcycle near Seepat Behrapur while returning home, when respondent No.1, driving the offending Bolero vehicle bearing registration No. CG-10T/1296 in a rash and negligent manner, dashed into his motorcycle, causing grievous injuries to his left leg, hand and other parts of the body. After the accident, he was initially shifted to SIMS Hospital, Bilaspur and, as his condition did not improve, he was further referred to J.J. Hospital, Bilaspur, where during the course of treatment he continued to remain unwell and ultimately suffered 15% permanent disability, resulting in his inability to perform his pre-accident work. The FIR was 3 lodged at Police Station Seepat, District Bilaspur, against the driver of the Bolero, and a challan was filed for offences under Sections 279, 337 and 338 of the IPC. The appellant/claimant further pleaded that at the time of the accident he was 32 years of age, earning Rs.6,000/- per month by working as a Tokari Maker, and claimed a total compensation of Rs.7,80,000/- under various heads, jointly and severally from the driver-cum-owner and the insurance company. Respondent No.1, the owner-cum-driver, filed his written statement denying liability and alleging contributory negligence on the part of the claimant, but admitted that the vehicle was duly insured. Respondent No.2, The Oriental Insurance Company, filed its written statement contending that the vehicle was being driven in breach of policy conditions and that the compensation claimed was excessive. The learned Claims Tribunal, vide impugned award dated 10.04.2018, partly allowed the claim petition, holding inter alia that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent act of respondent No.1, that the appellant had sustained grievous injuries, that breach of the insurance policy was not proved, and awarded compensation of Rs.1,02,840/-. The appellant/claimant submits that the finding of the Tribunal treating the injuries as simple is contrary to the documentary evidence on record. 3. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 9,000/- towards loss of income (90 days), Rs. 33,832/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 5,000/- towards special 4 diet, Rs. 25,000/- towards future medical expenses and Rs. 5,000/- towards transporting expenses. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 1,02,832/- 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. 1,02,832/- which is not in accordance with law and the same is required to be enhanced in accordance with law. She 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 respondent No. 1 opposes the same. 6. None for respondents No. 2 & 3. 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, 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. 5 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. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 50,000/- towards future treatment are hereby enhanced. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 1,00,000/- in addition to what is already awarded by the claims Tribunal. The enhanced amount will carry interest @ 6 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