1 2025:CGHC:53467 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1264 of 2017 1 - Sunil Sharma S/o Shri D. Sharma, Aged About 43 Years R/o New Khursipar, Bhilai 12, P.S. Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chattisgarh ..............Claimant, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Roshan Kumar S/o Dhanesh Ram Sharma, Permanent R/o Village Devaribhat, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, Presently R/o Dr. Rajendra Prasad Nagar, Khursipar Gate, Telhanala, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ..............Driver Of Vehicle No. C.G.07 C 8955, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shri Ballabhav S/o Late Bairagi, Aged About 42 Years R/o Street No. 38, Block No. 11 H, Zone-2, Khursipar, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ..............Owner Of Vehicle No. C.G.07 C 8955, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Branch Manager, National Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch No.2, I I Floor, Dubey Complex, Bhilai, Near Basant Talkies, Tahsil And District Durg, Chhattisgarh ..............Insurer Of Vehicle No. C.G.07 C 8955, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Mamta Patel, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate on behalf RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 of Mr. B.N. Nande, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 31/10/2025 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 30.6.2017 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (C.G.), in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 32/16 whereby compensation of Rs. 2,90,810/- with interest @ 7% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the present appellant had filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 41,50,800/- for the injuries sustained in an accident which resulted in permanent disablement. On 16.12.2014, at about 9:00 a.m., while the appellant was returning on his motorcycle, the respondent, coming from Urla Road, Main Gate, driving the offending vehicle bearing registration number CG/07/C/8955, dashed against the appellant’s motorcycle, causing him to sustain multiple injuries, including a fracture injury to his right pelvic region. It is an admitted position that the appellant underwent prolonged medical treatment and was assessed to have suffered a permanent disability of 17% as per Ex. P-15. The learned Tribunal, while 3 adjudicating the claim, framed five issues and, while deciding Issue No. 2, concluded that the disability certificate produced and proved by Dr. A.K. Yadav (AW-2) did not specify whether the disability was in relation to the whole body or a particular limb, and consequently reduced it to 10%. The learned Tribunal further erred in reducing the proven income of the appellant, duly supported by Ex. P-19 and Ex. P-20, and instead assessed the monthly income as Rs. 10,000/- without any justification, thereby failing to properly assess the loss of earning capacity. The Tribunal also failed to appreciate that while it found the injuries to be grievous and the treatment prolonged, it unjustifiably reduced the percentage of disability. It is further pertinent to mention that the opposite parties did not dispute any of the facts during the course of evidence through proper pleadings or by leading contrary evidence, and as such, the same ought to have been treated as admitted. The learned Tribunal failed to conduct a proper inquiry under Section 168 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and consequently did not award just and reasonable compensation to the appellant in light of the facts and circumstances of the case. 3. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,68,000/- towards loss of disablement, Rs. 17,810/- towards medical treatment, Rs. 60,000/- towards loss of income, Rs. 15,000/- towards diet/attendent and Rs. 30,000/- towards pain and suffering and injury. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 2,90,810/- has been 4 awarded in favor of the appellant/claimant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claims Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,90,810/- 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, it has argued on behalf of the counsel for respondent No. 3 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 Nos. 1 & 2 i.e. driver and owner of the offending vehicle. 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 future treatment is hereby enhanced. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 50,000/- 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. 6 The impugned award stands modified to the above extent and rest of the conditions shall remain intact. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat