1 CGHC010026342022 2026:CGHC:41816 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR THE DATE WHEN THE CASE IS RESERVED THE DATE WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS PRONOUNCED THE DATE WHEN THE JUDGMENT IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE Operative Full 16.09.2026 25.09.2026 25.09.2026 MAC No. 151 of 2022 Smt. Priya Rathi W/o Hemant Rathi Aged About 36 Years R/o Sanjay Ward, Bhatapara, P.S. Bhatapara (Town), District- Baloda-Bazaar- Bhatapara (C.G.) ... Appellant/Claimant versus 1 - Firtu Ram Dewangan S/o Late Tijau Ram Dewangan, R/o Village Pisegaon, P.S. Pulgaon, District- Durg (C.G.) (Driver Of Bus No. CG07-E-5300) 2 - M/s Raipur Bus Service Ganjpara Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) (Owner Of Bus No. CG 07-E-5300) 3 - Branch Manager The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Madina Building Kutchary Chowk, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer Of Bus No.- CG 07-E-5300) ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Swapnil Keshari, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Hemant Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents No.1 & 2 : None present For Respondent No.3 : Mr. P. Dutta, Adv. on behalf of Mr. Anil Kumar Gulati, Advocate BINI PRADEEP Digitally signed by BINI PRADEEP DN: cn=BINI PRADEEP, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN 2 ({Hon’ble Mr. Justice Santosh Sharma}) C A V Judgment 1. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short the "Act of 1988") has been preferred by the appellant/claimant seeking enhancement of the amount of compensation, challenging the impugned award dated 24.02.2021 passed in Claim Case No.25/2018, whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of 1,62,970/- towards compensation for the injuries sustained to the appellant in an accident that occurred on 22.01.2018. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the Appellant was travelling as a passenger in Bus No. CG-07-E-5300 on 22.01.2018 from Simga to Bhatapara. At about 1:30 p.m., near village Dhekuna, Respondent No.1, who was driving the said bus, drove the vehicle at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and suddenly applied the brakes. Due to the sudden braking, the Appellant, who was sitting on the rear seat of the bus, was thrown against the seat in front of her and sustained serious injuries to her right hand and shoulder, including fracture of the humerus and dislocation/injury around the elbow. Immediately after the accident, the Appellant was taken for treatment to Astha Nursing Home, Bhatapara, where she was given initial treatment and thereafter, for proper treatment, the Appellant went to Chandak Nursing Home, Nagpur, where she underwent surgery on 24.01.2018 and steel rods were inserted in her 3 right hand. She remained hospitalized from 24.01.2018 to 26.01.2018. Subsequently, another operation was performed on 27.03.2019 for removal of the rods. The accident was reported to Police Station Simga, resulting in registration of Crime No.40/2018 against the driver under Sections 279, 337 and 338 IPC. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent criminal court. The appellant/claimant filed an application under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act claiming compensation to the tune of Rs.7,00,000/- on account of medical expenses, future treatment expenses, and compensation on account of the disability and loss of earning capacity resulting from the injuries. 3. Respondents No.1 & 2, driver and owner of the vehicle filed a written statement denying the allegations made by the claimant and they also disputed the involvement of the vehicle and negligence. Further it was contended that the vehicle was insured with Respondent No.3 on the date of the accident, the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence, and the vehicle documents were valid. The driver/respondent No.1 had not driven the bus negligently and rashly, therefore, the claimant is not entitled to receive any compensation. 4. Respondent No. 3/Insurance Company, in its written statement, denied the allegations made in the claim application and contended that the bus was being driven on its proper side when its brakes suddenly jammed between Dhekuna and Limatara. It was pleaded that the accident was not caused by any human negligence or fault and, therefore, the Insurance Company was not liable to pay 4 compensation. It was further alleged that Respondent No. 1, the driver, did not possess a valid driving licence or transport vehicle licence, and that the vehicle was being operated in violation of the permit and fitness conditions. The Insurance Company also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed by the applicants, alleging it to be fabricated and exaggerated and therefore, the insurance company is not entitled to provide any compensation. 5. The learned Tribunal, after considering the evidence led, material placed and submissions made by the parties, partly allowed the application filed by the claimants and directed the insurance company to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,62,970/- along with interest of 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till date of payment of amount of compensation to the claimant. The aforesaid award has been challenged by the claimant for enhancement of the amount of compensation. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the compensation of 1,62,970/- awarded by the learned Tribunal is ₹ inadequate and does not amount to just and reasonable compensation. The Tribunal itself found that the Appellant suffered a fracture of the right humerus, underwent surgery with insertion of steel rods and remained under treatment for a prolonged period, including a subsequent operation on 26.03.2019 for removal of the rods. Despite these facts, the amounts awarded towards medical expenses, pain and suffering, transportation, attendant charges and nutritious diet are inadequate. The Tribunal also failed to properly consider the actual transportation expenses proved by the Appellant, 5 the period of treatment and the loss and inconvenience suffered during such period. The medical evidence, police records and charge- sheet support the Appellant's case regarding the nature of the injury and the accident, and the Tribunal has already held the Insurance Company liable to satisfy the award. Therefore, considering the nature of the injury, the surgeries undergone, prolonged treatment, medical expenses, transportation, pain and suffering and other consequences of the accident, the Appellant is entitled to enhancement of compensation to an amount which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and reasonable in the facts and circumstances of the case. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.3/insurance company would submit that the Claims Tribunal after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record rightly awarded the compensation amount. Hence, the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and requires no interference. 8. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused material available on record including award impugned. 9. 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 or a bonanza. 10. Now this Court shall examine as to whether the compensation of Rs.1,62,970/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the given facts and circumstances of the case? 6 11. It is not in dispute that the Appellant sustained injuries in the accident and underwent treatment. The learned Tribunal has already taken into consideration the medical evidence and the documentary evidence produced by the Appellant. 12. So far as the medical expenses are concerned, the Tribunal considered the medical bills and other treatment documents placed on record and awarded the amount of which, according to its assessment, was proved from the evidence. The Appellant has not been able to demonstrate from the material on record that any particular proved medical expenditure was wrongly excluded or that the assessment made by the Tribunal is contrary to the evidence. 13. The Appellant has also claimed enhancement towards conveyance/transportation expenses. The Tribunal considered the railway tickets and other documents relating to travelling expenses. Although, the documents indicated expenditure, the Appellant could not produce the person as witness, who issued bill of transportation, despite that the learned Tribunal after looking to the nature of treatment and other relevant factors, awarded lump-sum amount of Rs.10,000/- under above head. The Appellant has not raised any sufficient ground for interference with the said assessment, hence, the amount awarded under this head is just and proper. 14. As regards pain and suffering, the learned Tribunal awarded ₹50,000/-. The nature of the injury, the surgery undergone by the Appellant and the period of treatment have been taken into consideration. Having regard to the overall evidence available on 7 record, the amount awarded under this head cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable so as to warrant appellate interference. 15. Likewise, the Tribunal awarded 10,000/- towards ₹ attendant charges and nutritious diet. The Appellant has not produced sufficient evidence establishing any specific additional expenditure under these heads so as to justify enhancement. The amount awarded by the Tribunal is, therefore, not shown to be unjust or improper. 16. In the claim application, it was contended that the appellant would spend Rs.3 lakh on future treatment. The subsequent treatment is certainly a relevant circumstance while assessing the consequences of the injury. However, she did not provide any credible evidence or documents to support the expenses of Rs.3 lakh. The compensation has to be determined on the basis of the evidence establishing the actual loss or expenditure. 17. It is necessary to bear in mind that the object of awarding compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act is to grant just compensation on the basis of the evidence available before the Tribunal. At the same time, enhancement cannot be granted merely because a higher amount has been claimed by the claimant. The claimant has to establish the entitlement to the additional compensation claimed under the respective heads. 18. In the present case, the learned Tribunal has considered the nature of the injuries, the treatment undergone by the Appellant, the medical evidence, the medical bills and the documents relating to 8 transportation. The findings recorded by the Tribunal are based upon appreciation of the evidence and no perversity or material error in the assessment of compensation has been demonstrated before this Court. 19. Upon an overall consideration of the material available on record, I find that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal under the various heads, including medical expenses, conveyance/transportation, pain and suffering, attendant charges and nutritious diet, is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. No sufficient ground has been made out for further enhancement. 20. The Appellant has failed to establish that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is inadequate to such an extent as would warrant interference by this Court. 21. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. Sd/- (Santosh Sharma) Judge Bini