@ . 7? 3 V ’@, W _ H MA(C)N0€ U’ /2006 3mm ganch ‘ N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITTISGARH AT BILASPUR / (PELLANT: ' r f r (B ‘Slngh Rajput _ '. \ S/olateGaneshSm Ra ut ‘V Aged 36 Years R/o Pol no 105 Zero V- Road Shantl _ Nagar Bh11a1 Dlstrlpt Durg(C.G) i T‘!‘ A. _ , _ _ ‘ . ‘ 1 z z 9 VERSUS \ I‘RE&/ONDENTS ‘ /].«Kunja~Ja1na . R/o Hanumaan Temple Road RamNagar Bhllal Dlstnct Durg ‘ r (Driver 0f Offending Vehlcle Mahlndri‘ _ Champion Reg no CG07/T/0181) }Aj ay Kumar S/o Hon Narayan ’ \‘ Chhajarae R/o Qr No 15 Block No '4 Street no 9 Sector No 4 Bh11a1 , D1str1ct Durg(C G) ( Owner of offending vehlcle Mahmdra v! Champion Reg no CG07/T/0181) (The td Onental Insurance Company: Ma1v1ya Nagar Chowk Durg ( Insurance Company of Mahmdra H Champnon Reg no CG07/T/0181) Ap‘PEAI; UNDER SECTION 173 OFMOTOR VEHICLE ACT : \ j L " , ‘ ‘S/oBhagwan Jama 'd - RJ V H I I _ ' I Through Reglonal Manager V ‘ ‘7 3 P I ‘ 1r 'j _ ‘ ; XI-HC—78 mw,m,m MA CC) wc‘ ééU; m zooé mm~o.oo‘0‘oooooo§o§oooo mm (W) o by the appellant. However, the a The impugned award clearly gm examine his employer to prove Sharma. This fact was not disp appellant during the course cf arg So far as computation of ompensation in para 15 is concerned, the same has not been assai d by the learned counse! for the appeltant who only contended tha the expenses which were likely to be incurred ought to have been onsidered. However, a perusal of impugned award goes to show t at the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 15,0001- for further expens bove submission cannot he accepted. as to show that the claimant did not his employment with M/s Kailash uted by the learned counsel for the aments. on treatment. ln that view of the matter, l am of the considered pinion that the compensation of Rs. 1,18,880/— awarded by the lear ed Tribunai is just and reasonable compensation. For the foregoing reasons this appeal being devoid of merit and is dismissed at the stage of admi sion. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Sd-/ CC. as per rules. Kvr P.T.O. ”r? ' , i mam“ WWEMW WWW WWIWW hmm 93101/2607 Shri Anurag Jha, copunsel for the appellant. v Heard. During arguments the learned counsel for the appellant assailed the impugned award dated 257.2006 only on the ground that the monthly income of the appellant was wrongly assessed at Rs.3000l- per month instead of Rs.8000/- in View of the satary certificate furnished