>!.'.'l'":; / ^ D5IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.) /^-2- M.A. fC ) No /2007 APPELLANT Claimant y RESPONDENTS Ku. Sunita, aged about 9 yrs (Present 25 years) D/o. Beniram, Minor Through Father Beniram, S/o. Kalika Prasad, aged about 38 years, resident of Village- Biswa, Tahsil and District BilaspUF— (C.G.) VERSUS Amotak Singh, aged about 40 Years, son of Harwansh Singh, Resident of Dayalband, •" Bilaspur (C.G.) Khorbahara @ Kholbahara, son of Guharam Yadav, Resident of Sakin Jokhas, Bilaspur. Oriental Insurance Company, Through Competent Officer, Normal School Road, Bilaspur (At present High Court Road) 1 XI-HC-78 HIH^II ShHlc*> 3^ '<1WMil, VSl-^tl'W, fsfdltiy ^ M.A.CcJiJo,_l-r^/ 7^/ 200-^ 311^1 4act> (lid(^s«^T) an^Twfci-fi'sb (maTI^Tshliti ?RITWHf?(T3:(1^T tiiitfi'ftT iiHciT ff te^F <Rf<^i<: ^Tsrf^rq'sn^T Shri Gauiam Khetrapa), l-1eard on admission. The appellant is aggrieved) ! Additional IViotor Accident Claihis whereby compensation of Rs.1,2fl, along with interest @ 10% from| claimant. Brief facts are that the fracture 1n the tibia fibuia bone of toe. Dr. I.D.Kalvvani A.VV.-2 testifi^d accident was 45%. Appe!lant-cl^i occurrsnce i.e. 23-12-1991 and \4 Claims Tribunal awarded a sum oE ofwhich is as follovi/s:- Cc|unsel for the appellant. by an sward dated 28-10-2006 passed by the fns Tribunai, C.G. in Claim Case No.25/1993 l.OQO/- (One lac & twenty four thousand oniy) the date of application was awarded to the ^ppellant-claimant Ku. Sunita had sustalned [he left ieg and also sustained injury in the 04 that permanent disability causea' due to the (imanf v/as aged 9 years on the date of tas deaf & dumb. The learned Motor Accident Rs.1,24.000/- as compensation, the break-up (1) (2) (3) (4) (6) (7) (8) Expenses incurred Expenses incurred Expenses incurred Expenses incurred Expenses incurred Towards loss of ea Towards pain & su Towards loss of jjuring treatment - towards attendant- |:oward specia! diet- towards treatment- ^owara's transport- ling capacity ;nng Cohiforts of lire- ailn sufFe Rs. 4,000/- Rs. I.OOO/- Rs. 1.000/- Rs. 1,000,'- Rs. 2,000/- Rs. 90.000/- Rs. 5.000/- Rs. 20,000/- Shri Gautam Khstrapal, that rnedical evidence was not 1 Accident C!aims Tribunal and urg Idarned counsel for the appe[!ant has aa'mitted d by the claimant before the iearned Ivlotor !d for enhancement of compensation awarded XI-HC-78 ssr '^iii'n^, ^^'1$, (siciiu^ . H.A.C<'^^o. '^ HWW\ Sb*1|cb W?[ 200-^ Sii^i 4^* ('ia^qi^r) an^Tqn'f^TNi aaiTsn^T^iiri?; Tumane gTcnwefscTsn^T L. by the learned M.A.C.T. only on t| appsHant-claimant were aiso affec] taken into consideration. I am of considered opinion I M.A.C.T. is just and reasonable mentioned above and does not call In the result, the appeal bei admission. No order as to costs. tfie ^T2(fe^Twirffit'te^i'<Faiwi< ^siRmsn^T ground that the marriage prospects of the )ted due to the accident which fact v»as not |hat the compensation awarded by the learned c|ompensation in the facts and cireumstances |fbr any interference in this appeal. |ig devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage of Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge