-HC—78 sn^i^'femT W •=Nli?l a-.*i •j^^ww^, w^w'w, \^v>wy. ^q^ .....(A.^.G......^.................^ ^^ ^ an^?r tra?; (4cii'L«<<{8i) ® waiwdl?ff SII^T APPELLANTS: CLAIMANTS 1. 2. 3. -Versi RESPONDENTS: NON-APPLICANTS: 2. (Appeal under Section 173 c Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. e-11-2007:- Shri Alok Dewangan, counse Orat order dictated on Dais. L.C. Bhadoo, J. '^i-'if'c'ral^ *im^^^^ <fa1^.i< ^aifgii 3)i^i Balram, S/o Lakhmu, Caste Dhurva, Aged about 26 years, R/o Bade Munna, Jagdalpur (Died, Thus name deleted) Sonmati, Wfo Late Shri Balram, Aged about 21 years, Kumari Muskan, D/o Late Shri Balram, Aged about 1.6 years, Guardian Mother Sonmati. Lakhmu, Sto Suder, about 45 years, All R/o Jagdalpur. Bade Aged Murma, Sudershan Nag, S/o Shri Jhimturam Nag, aged about 35 years, Thana Parpa, Jagdalpur. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Jagdalpur. fthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988) ^. for the appellant. -HC—78 '3^ •<II<<I<A<(, ydl'H'iis, Rlcilti^ ^ W^ 200 an^?r ''raw (iyf-i«t<w) aii^g^rfipiR; '(T<?T 3?T^?I ^HRT t^nw ^ifef sn^r The claimants/appellants, v claimant Balram, have preferred thi Act, 1988 being aggrieved by the a( Additional Motor Accident Clainf No.71/2007 whereby learned compensation as lump sum regar^ling as also treatment expenses. ti: is the pendency ofthe claim petition, (jtio are wife, daughter and father of i^ appeal under Section 1 73 of the h4.V. ifivard dated 3-8-2007 passed by the 2 |s Tribunal, Bastar in Claim Case ITribunal has awarded Rs.30,000/- injuries sustained by the claimant |lso mentioned in the award that during tlaimant Balram had died. Leaned counsel for the s^ reached to the conclusion that regarding 35% disability incurrec| accident, then learned Tribuna! oud ^pellants argued t4at when Tribunal Li^S. (< |the certificate^issued by the doctor by the claimant on account of the jht to have applied multiplier. Having heard learned counj the impugned award. In para-1; obsewed that during the pendenc^ had already died & it was not p| accident. Learned Tribunal examined by the claimant, has claimant was able to work in the awarded Rs.30,000/- irt lump sumj 3 years from the date of the accid) by him on his treatment & for oth|i Rs.25,000/- has already been claimant was working as labour-4 claimant has also not been proved) qii<i[<i<ili ii'iiif if.ls^ <R<t^l< ^aifin sii^i ^el for the appetlant, we have perused of the award, learned Tribunal has of the claim petition, claimant Balram I'oved that he died On account of the further observed that Dr. L.L. Thakur, st^ted that there was 35% disability, but )rdinary course, therefore, the Tribunal as the claimant died within a period of 'nt and about Rs.5,000/- were incurred i|er headings, looking to 3 years period aw^rded by the Tribunal. Moreover, the jit Jagdalpur. The dai!y income of the Therefore, looking to the totality ofthe IHC—78 3^T ^q|A|lc/><)^ y((ly41<o, ft|^W^< _ ...^2.&^....J..?..£.^./..^:... Wl: 200 3ii^r?!r1SFiw wnsnt'HsOTN? Ban/e an^r irag? (yS-^gst) ^aiwflfrg sii^i *i<ii<i41'f tiwdf 'if_te€t<l«itii< ^TSilOT 311^1 cireumstances, lump sum Rs.30,OCp/ We are of the considered opinion on any ground and compensation a| P/- has been awarded by the Tribunal. fiat the said amount is not inadequate (nount is just and reasonable. in the circumstances, we do same being devoid of merit, is lie dismissed. Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo not find any substance in this appeat, fote tp be dismissed and it is hereby Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge /y;^^.