WW,W,W 71 #W’ 6 ' 3/ é m W (W) mmm‘ WWm ~ a A WWW§WW‘ aw aim mam ' l ‘ ’\ sustained bv her in a motcr vehicle accident dated 6.12.1999 which was caused due to‘ fash and negligent dn'ving of the appellant] owner of the motor cycle No. M.P.24 EB 2879. Learned counsel for thie appellant submits that there 'was only a fracture of tibia bone caused to the respondent, no medical V ‘bills towards expenditure incurred by the respondent/ claimant has been filed and even then the lealned Tribunal has awarded excessive compensation to ".he claimant as she has also not sun‘ered any permanent or partial disability. Claimant has admitted that she resumed her classes only after 20 days of the accident. On other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/claimant submits that the claimant, student of Class— II, sustained fracture of tibia one and remained in the hospital for 15 days, plaster was opened nly after six months of the accident and during this period, she W s not able to attend her classes and she was made to sun'er pain d inconvenience, themfore, amount of compensation assessed b the learned Tribunal is just and proper and does not call for ‘ terference. 1 I have heard learned c unsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned awa as also the documentary and oral evidence on record. GRPRJ ~ FS/24‘6—-— 2/2007 a 50,000. Th€ fact that accident occurred due to rash and nagligent dliving of th€ appellant is; not in dispute. Even the injury sustained by the respondent is also not in dispute. The only dispute is with mspect to duantum of compensation awaided to the respondent] claimant. The'Tribunal after considering the evidence available on ‘ "* ‘ record has disallowed the claim of Rs. 30,000/- to Rs.35,000/- l allegedly claimed by father of the respondent towards her lreatment on the ground that no receipt towards expenditure has been iiled; However, considering the duration of treannent and peliod of hospitalization, a sum of Rs.8,000/- has been awarded under this head. Another Rs.6,000] - has been awarded towards nutritious diet and a further sum of Rs.5,000/ — for inconvenience caused to the claimant as sile was not able to walk for a period of 6—7 months and a sum of R $5,000] - towards physical and mental sun'ering by the claimant, has been awarded. On the basis of this calculation and further deducting a sum of Rs. 1, 800/ - which was given by the appellant to thé Claimant, a total sum of Rs.22,200/ - has been awarded. Looking to the nature of injuries, duration of treatment and period for which she could not walk, the amount awarded by the learned Trib unal appears to be just and proper and does not call for anv interference. In the result, the appeal being devoid of substance is hereby dismissed. . Sd/— DI-MENDRA .MISHRA Judge XI-HC—-—78 '27 m @ m 200 ‘1 J“ mm (W) WWW Hmmm Wmm mw#fgétm 3 %aifattal1%¥r