*II*ICTI <a»*ii<i> ^T^T '-^l^lri^, u>-al^-i<i<c, RrtiY-t^ — ....^\fi-.^.^:..tlv[lpl...... • •• •Ki • A«l«/« ^«• ••••«4nV«-Ik^r •Ua" • • li • • ^s ^,200 OT^^Tcnl^TT^ craTOT^^a^Tt^ 3TT^?T q^P (yii^qcg) ^RTTW^f^T3TT^^T HIGH COURT OF C cbl^fc6^1v1 HP:Tc'?f^fecSt ^K»l^i'< ^sri^rsn^ST hlHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Coram : Hon'ble ShrilDhirendra Mishra, Hon'ble ShrilDilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. JJ. Misc.Appelal (Cl No.764 of 2008 Appellant Amarjeet 20 years, F? Form Kharhtarai present Qr| Station Sect Distt. Durgl Versu^ Respondents 1. 2. Fadav, S/o Chinilal Yadav, aged about [fo Village Veer Singh Bhupendra Singh Tehsil Berla, Distt. Durg (C.G) at N0.16/D.C.S. Street 4, Sector 5, Police tion 6, Kotwali, Bhilai Nagar, Tahsil and (C.G.) Mithilesh K|umar, S/o Siyaram Nishad, aged about 28 years, |R/o Malpuri, Police Station Nandani, Tehsil @ D|stt. Durg (C.G.) (Driver oftihe Tractor No. C.G.06-A/0312) Siyaram Ni|shad, S/o Johan Nishad, R/o Malpuri, Police Statil (Driver of the Tractor No. C.G.06-A/0312) 3. New India Raipur, Tatlsil and Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Insurancel Present: ?n Nandani, Tehsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Insurance Co. Ltd. R.DA.Building, Com- of_theTractor No. C.G.06- A/0312) Appeal under Section 17|3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 Shri Jitendra Gupta, {)ounsel for the appellant. ORlAL ORDER (Passec) The following oral ordercj Mishra, J. This is claimant's appeal awarded to him vide order dated on 03.12.2008) if the Court was passed by Dhirendra for enhancement of the compensation 131.01.2008 by the 7th Additional Motor t%??^'' ^5ST;=?TTZrT^T, u>-al^«i<o,Rlril^-iy^ ^ *11HC5T ^<TT^ 3TT^9T q^Zp (ijcli^el^) W^ 200 3TT^^Tcinf^lf<^ ?CT3H'^$T(P+li<p ?^TWr;Hf^T3TT^$T Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.i in claim case No.8/2007 whereby) as compensation to the appellan|t vehicle accident. 2. Case of the appellant b( 24.12.2006 white he was proceec|i respondent No.1 - Mithilesh Kum^ driving the tractorrashly and neg|l cycle, as a result thereof, the cla| bones of below right knee were right hand and elbow. With thes^ of Rs.3,73,800.00 as compensati(|>n 3. Respondents No.1 & 2 d^nied and stated that the claimant ha^ respondent No.3 - Insurance Cohnpany claim petition and took the defencje of policy condition, and therefore), compensation. 4. The Tribunal by the impugi] due to rash and negligent drivint claimant suffered grievous inj compensation of Rs.20,440/- und{ (Pl^fc^^-t+11+1C>T<ff^t^Rr|^|^ ^3Tf^R'3TT^$T ), Durg (henceforth 'the Claims Tribunal') a sum of Rs.20,440/- has been awarded for injury sustained by him in a motor fefore the Claims Tribunal was that on ing on cycle in connection with his work, |ir, driver of the tractor No.C.G.06-A/0312 ligently dashed from the rear side of the fmant sustained grievous injuries i.e. two frjactured. He also sustained injuries in his ?s^ pleadings, the appellant claimed a sum from the respondents. the averments of the claim petition put up exaggerated claim whereas the also denied the allegations of the e that the tractor was being run in breach the insurance company is not liable for led award held that the accident occurred of the tractor by respondent No.1; the uries and accordingly awarded total 'r the following heads: ii B^i ....^^^^.,. /SE^ ^T5crT«l^lrt<4,U>TTl^<l<?,ROW^ *11*1rtl 9»<TT^ 3TT^?T tRR? (^cj[^6|«£i) ^200 3TT^^T<PTRRt<P ^TOT^^T^WP ?;(^TTWr ^rfl^T 3TT^^T 1. Loss of income for a pe\ 2. Expenses incurred in tr^ 3. For severe pain and su1|Fering 4. For special diet Tota; 5. Learned counsel for the ap^ellant solely on the ground that the Cl certificate issued to the claimant suffered 15% disability as a resi assailed the impugned award on to Ex.P.59 and Ex.P.60 to Ex.P.'; same have been filed and proved. has assailed the impugned award l^ims Tribunal has ignored the disability ^A/hich clearly mentions that the claimant |lt of the above accident. He has also :|ie ground that medical bills from Ex.P.39 (1 have not been considered though the 6. We have heard learned coi the impugned award as also the re of the learned counsel for the apj have assessed compensation by 15% sustained by the appellant perusal of the record, it is obs\ disability certificate, has not been| not been examined. In these cirt the claim of the appeal towards ^ ground that the Tribunal ignored| from perusal of the medical b consideration by the Claims cpi^fc^n^ ^i^oT^'f^l<i ^Fji^-ci^ ^3Tl^T3TT^$T iod of 4 months atment Rs.12,000/- Rs. 2,4401- Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 1,000/- = Rs.20,440/- |nsel for the appellant. We have perused ^cord of the Claims Tribunal. Submission |)ellant that the Claims Tribunal ought to t)onsidering the disability to the extent of ih the said accident. However, from the i^rved that the Doctor, who has given examined even the treating Doctor has tumstances, the Tribunal rightly rejected p|ermanent disability. So far as the other |the proved medical bills is concerned, llls which have not been taken into Trib|unal for the purpose of assessing the f" t ^ ^wT'r<ii<4io^,tp-nl'<i<i<»,Roi^i^ (^ wraianriq? ...^.^..^.IM--.....^200 3TT^9T 1T?cp (ljc|i^<s|«^) 3n^$7<nf^;:Tt<p. cTSTTSTT^^TSCTff^ ^PfT^R ^Tf^T 3TT^^T compensation, we find that the s|aid claimant nor the head under which the 6. For the aforesaid reason^, Tribunal has not committed any has rightly assessed the compen^ 7. The appeal being devoid of SdA Dhu'endra Mishra Judge chl^fo54)<r1 ^l^c^'^'fe^t^rjl^-ci^ ^3yf^T3TT^^T bills neither mention the name of the amount has been spent. , we are of the opinion that the Claims llegality or infirmity in the impugned and iation payable to the appellant. substance is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge