1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1709 of 2017 1 - Vijay Yadav @ Vijju S/o Late Tijau Yadav, Aged About 25 Years R/o Murgi Farm, Chhoti Koni Police Station Koni, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Mohammad Nasim Ansari S/o Mohd. Riyasat Ansari, C/o Krishna Kumar S/o Dhananjay Jaiswal, Near Nova Office, Tiwari Colony, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Krishna Kumar S/o Dhananjay Jaiswal, Near Nova Office, Tiwari Colony, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 3 - Cholamandalam M/s General Insurance Company Ltd. Through The Branch Manager, Branch Office First Floor Rajiv Plaza, Bus Stand Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rohit Sharma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sudhanshu Upadhyay, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Sangeet Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA 2 Order on Board 13/11/2025 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant being aggrieved by the impugned awarded dated 24.02.2015 passed by the 4th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh in in Claim Case No.414/2014 wherein amount of Rs.3,23,500/- along with interest @ 6% per annum was granted in favour of the claimants. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, for necessary disposal of this case are that on 29.04.2013, the claimant, Vijay Yadav @ Bijju, was travelling in his car from Katha-Koni, when a truck bearing registration no. CG-10 C-4060, being driven in a rash and negligent manner, violently dashed against the said car. As a result of the said collision, the appellant, along with other occupants, sustained grievous injuries, and the appellant suffered permanent disability due to the injuries sustained in the said accident. It is submitted that, at the time of the incident, the appellant was 25 years of age and earning his livelihood as a mason, but owing to the said accident, he lost his working capacity. The appellant also lost his speaking ability and has been diagnosed with Right Hemiparesis, rendering him incapable of performing any gainful employment or physical activity for earning his livelihood. The injuries sustained have made his life dependent on continuous medical care and treatment, thereby causing him to incur substantial medical expenses till date. However, despite the 3 severity of the injuries, permanent disability, and the loss of future earning capacity, the Learned Tribunal failed to appreciate the facts and circumstances in their entirety and awarded a meagre sum of Rs. 3,23,500/- only against the claim of Rs. 21,00,000/-, vide Impugned Award dated 24.02.2015. 3. Learned counsel for the claimants submits that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is not in accordance with law and is manifestly inadequate, warranting enhancement. It is further submitted that while the Tribunal has granted amounts towards medical and treatment expenses, travel, and diet, the compensation for pain and suffering is disproportionately low, and no amount has been granted for future treatment. Accordingly, it is prayed that the compensation awarded be suitably enhanced. In view of this, the quantum of compensation granted to the claimants be appropriately increased. 4. Learned counsel for the insurance company vehemently opposes the submission advanced by the counsel appearing for the claimants and submits that the impugned award is contrary to the facts, law, and evidence on record. He further prays that the impugned awards be set aside or suitably reduced. 5. None of the Respondents No.1 & 2. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 4 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 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. 5 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 the Tribunal has rightly granted medical expenses of the claimant to the sum of Rs.2,72,500/-. This Court is of the opinion that the income of the claimant is wrongly assessed by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs.3,000/- which would be increased to Rs.5125/- as monthly income and granted 1 year (12 months) salary as financial loss. Further, amount Rs.25,000/- is granted as special diet, Rs.30,000/- be awarded as pain and suffering and Rs.20,000/- be granted in loss of amenities therefore, the award is hereby enhanced. Sn. Heads Compensation 01 Loss of Income Rs.61,500/- (Rs.5125/- x 12) 02 Medical Expenses Rs.2,72,500/- 03 Special Diet Rs.25,000/- 04 Pain and Suffering Rs.30,000/- 05 Loss of Amenities Rs.20,000/- Total Rs.4,09,000/- 11. Accordingly, the total compensation is enhanced to Rs. 4,09,000 /- from Rs.3,23,500/-. Thus, there is an enhancement of Rs.85,500/-, which shall carry interest at the same rate as awarded by the Tribunal (6% p.a.) from the date of claim petition till realization. 12. As a result, the appeal is allowed in part. The award dated 6 24.02.2015 is modified to the extent indicated above. Rest of the terms and conditions of the Tribunal’s award remain intact. Certified Copy as per rules. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Saxena