HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : B1LASPUR ^ SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.LJHANWAR. J. Misc.ADpeal N0.1092^2005 APPELLANT Claimant Manharan Lal @ Manohar Lal D^wangan, sto Mari Ram, ayged about 47 years, resident of Sypela^ Tahsll Kurud, District Dhamtar} (CG) c c VERSUS RESPONDENTS : 1 Manoj Kumar Ahuja s/o Dashrath Mal Ahuja, resident of t.sil Bagichat Ward Dhamtari (CG) 2 Manish Agrawal, s/o late Gopat Das, resident &f Sadar Bazar Ward, Dhamtari (CG) 3 The New India Insuranee Company Limited, GE Rc^id, Bhilai, Distrjd Durg (CG) MISGELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE 1VJOTOR VEHICLES ACT^88-":::":"'/,: ~ Appearance: Shri Wasim Miyam, counsel for the appellant. None for respondente No.1 and 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER 3.9.2010) R.LJhanwar, J Appellant is seeking enhancement of the Gompensation awarded by the Additional Motor AcGidents Claims TribunaJ, Dhamtari (CG) (for short 'the Tribunal*) vide award dated 2.8.200S, passed in Claim Case No. 496/2004. •'•J- c <: 2. As against the compensation of Rs.8,70,000/- clalmed by the appellant /claimant by filing a claim petition ynder Section 166 of ttie Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in ttie motor accident on 10.2.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation along with interest @ ©% per annum from the date offiling the claim petition till the dateofactual payment. 3. The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of tie entire evidenee ted before it held that daimant Manharan Lat sustatned injurtes in fie motor acddent pn 10.2.2003; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the motorcyclist of the motorcycle, bearSng registration No.CG 05 Z E 0927; as the above mptor^cle on the date of accident was insured wfth the New India Insurance Company Limited, the Insurance Company was liable to pay cpmpensation to the claimant. 4. As the respondents have not filed any appeal agaidst the award, the above findjngs recorded by the Tribunal have now attained finality. 5. The Tribunal considering the numberand nafaireoflnjuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident, awarded Rs.25,000/- on account of partial disability and Rs.tO.OOO/- towards pain and suffering. Thus,the Tribunal awarded a totelsum pf Rs.35,000/- to the claimant for ttie injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. Th§Tribunal further directed payment of interest @ 6% per annum fromthe date of filing of the claim petrtion Iflt ttie date of actual payment. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitt^l that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.35,000/- only, though the ctaimant sustained 45 % disability, due to which he could n©tget promotion; he is not able to do work properiy as he was doing before the accident. He argued that medical expenses also have not been :u' c < awarded to the claimant; therefore, the Gompensation should tee enhanced. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.3 submitted that the learned Tribunal h9®r'^htly swarded Rs.^>,QC3l©y- because the claimant was in service in the Forest Department and he has notproduced any docymentto show that due to the ac«ident,lie was not promoted or he was not able to do work properly; or his income has been reduced. He submitted that ttie claimant has obtained medical expenses from the Forest Department; tiie claimant himseff was negligent and driverofthe motorcydewas not having valid licenceat the time of accident, therefpre, the Tribunal hasnot erred in awardingRs.35,000/-. 8 . I have heard tearned counsel for the parties and perused the record and award impugned. 9. So far as enhancement is concemed it is clear that daimant Manharan Lal was working as a Forest ©uard in ttie Forest Department at the time of aGcident and he has received mediGal expenses from his department; he was also reeejving sateey continuously. He has not produced any docyment relatingt<? accident that for what period he was admjtted in hospitat; for what period he could not get salary. He has also not produced any document that due to the injuries.he is not abte to dowork properiy and his salary has been reduced; he could npt be promoted or he was found unfit fbr promotion, therefore, tiiere is no loss of income. 10. It is clear that due to partial disability working capacity of the appellant has not been reduced, therefore, the arguments advaiic^t by learned counset for the appellant has no force. The Tribunat-has rightly awarded Rs.35,000/- as total compensatipn to fce clatn^int, which appears to be just and proper compensation in ttie pre&enlt: 4 ?3 ^ c c facts and circumstances of the case and the matter does notcalt for interference. 11. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merHs is llable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- R-L. Jhawar Judge c