1 2025:CGHC:56407 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1111 of 2018 1 - Shesh Giri Goswami S/o Late Kalash Giri Goswami Aged About 70 Years R/o Jahrabhata Kumharapara Ward No. 12 Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - Devkumar Shrivas S/o Ramlal Shrivas, Aged About 28 Years R/o Karma And Police Sipat District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. (Driver), District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Kripal Singh Kawar S/o Ramcharan Kawar, Aged About 28 Years R/o Jhabar And Police Station- Dipka, District Korba Chhattisgarh. (Owner), District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. 3 - National Insurance Company Limited 13 Minu Complex Main Road Kosabada Korba District Korba Chhattisgarh., District : Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondent(s) No. 1 & 2 : None. For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Qamrul Aziz, Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 19/11/2025 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 7.5.2018 passed by the learned 1st Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.), in Claim Case No. 90/16 whereby compensation of Rs. 1,00,075/- with interest @ 6% per annum, in favour of the appellant/claimant has been awarded. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, on 16.12.2015, while the appellant was coming out from Durga Mandir, Jaharabhata near Amar Gas Agency on Raipur Road and proceeding towards his home with due care and caution, he was suddenly dashed by respondent No. 1, who was driving a Xylo vehicle bearing registration No. CG12- AE-9301 in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the said accident, the appellant sustained grievous injuries on his teeth, head, nose, ears and other parts of the body, including a fracture on his jaw, for which he was immediately hospitalized, and a criminal case was registered against respondent No. 1 at Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur, vide Crime No. 801/2015. Thereafter, the appellant filed a claim petition before the Claims Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs. 3,75,000/- from the respondents under various heads, stating that at the time of the incident he was selling coconut items and earning Rs. 4,500/- per month. After hearing both parties, the learned Claims Tribunal, by the impugned award dated 07.05.2018, awarded Rs. 8,5075/- towards 3 medical bills and Rs. 15,000/- under other heads. 3. The tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 85,075/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards special diet and attendant charges. Thus, a total compensation of Rs. 1,00,075/- 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. 1,00,075/- 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. 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 respondents No. 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 4 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. 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 5 considering the fact that a sum of Rs. 75,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 25,000/- towards special diet and attendant charges, Rs. 20,000/- towards loss of income during treatment and Rs. 25,000/- towards loss of amenities are hereby enhanced. 12. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The claimant shall be entitled to Rs. 1,45,000/- 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/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat