ll llti8iiiUSiliBMiMI»Niffi»BM^ •^x:%®ilSIBii§Bia!^^—^BB8 ^liJlSttiiiilBSSISiKBBBil^^ IMUB^BIIIISlMNiBUB8BlilBMBBKBlBllli11 ^^j|g||j||g||mtta|^^a^«|||j||||i||j||^|k^ '^^^^SKSii^Kiiusssssisssiiiixs ];||ggI|||||u|1i|Bip§|omaIgS||(n|^ ^SIiiiii(B8i@ c%W ^®iurg|(€^^ 'yMs%iB8ESiM®ffi%"li^ IB^MMSEi; lEaisBtaffiiS&S^IRunpgB^m^ iage^i|aBou^^.ye^]ps,^:^^::^.:^:;^y'?^ |Ki'o|^iUa^|^hJ3^a,^IPost3|aiagaW,;|:'^^^^^^^ |Eai|Eil|Ua:B|iiiMfffi!tii]iai^i^^ SVSs .%:s^>llBiEli^CT31i^]IFS^ ilBSitiSilSSBBKBSBMIiSUBflRillNiSS ^%%^®ES;^SB%iUi|^||'|W^^ '::'^?'?'^l%31il%a|%^ gan|a^|E)^^ ii[ffiiiliiiBaiNMaa is ^M^Nims»g|sg '••'^^^••fi^i^MMBiliBin^ ai T ?£[^nqRTO, •^tWTg, Tsi^iyy ^^.J.VLA.C..........4>(2..1..... wnsn^ranr'p iwtfepfri-wrai ^ fttz>'(^5" •^aiSmsiT^t ,LAT< Oriec'tal losurance Comoanv Ltiii'isd, Paraaanand Bhawaa Rajeadra P4rk Chook, Durg Distt Durg (CG), ^oi^h Divisional Manassr, Divisional O^ce, Dure, Durg (CG) -NTS 1 F^rsu Ram son of S1Tri Budli Ram Darau. a:^d a'oout 35 vears, Ri'o 'i'iUage Ghotiva. Ptjst Badgaon, Tah. Paidiar^ur, Distt. J'^1 VEmCL SB: HdN'ELE Jl '•^lJLJJt.^Ji. Ui''^'^^ Aer CCG) 2. Oi^iprakash alias Prakash Kianar Sahu, S/'^ Hsmlal Sahu, aged about 29 years, R't) viflage and Post Badgaon, Ta5i. Pa^dianjur, Distt. Kariker (CG) MISC. APPEAL UNDER ^ECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR ES ACT, 1988 i7 "L" A S^- .4 T~s 't.TS,' •i ^ rc,,K.- AiiAKWAJ 21-t-2009 Shri Vipia Tiwari, Advoc4tej fer As appellant. 2. Heard on admis«ion. 1 3. This appeal is directsd atainst no fau2t award datsd 3-2-2009 passed by the Additional Mot4- Accident Claims Tribunal (V-C), Balod, Distt. Durg in Motor Accifent Clsim Case No. 31/2008 holding &s claimimt permansirtly disabled Vehicles Act 1988 (for short, he thereby passed an award ofRs. 2' m temi.s of Sectior; 142 c.fths Motor •emafter referred to as 'the Act') and ,000,''- as compeasation under Section 140-ofthsAct. j 4. Sltri Tiwari, leamed coundel for fee appeUant did sot raiss any ga'ound which is avaflable to the I^isu!;ance Company midsr Section 147 Sw<?^05RhTFt^—E-^S/95—11/2GOS—1,00,000. x ;i1/:: !. -ys, ^)Tqra?I, ^ftTFT®,fsRTRTy A<:.;.;...(s^7:.. W[ 200 3 a^[-q5HT (•'jqf^qS?) ^raferiN tniraf •?fest ^R?n ^atfimsti^f or Section 149 ofthe Act aad tlte oalv conteation raised bv him is that 'eamed Tribunal en'ed in awardtie the comoensation undsr Sectio-fi 140 ofths Act bv ta&ins into coasidt has been issued 'ov a orivate doc.4 5. Tliis appeal desen'~es t^ ration the certificate of disabilit" ^/hich or. indisputably, m rslation to a thji-d parh', the grounds upon vAich the insurer can deny its liabiHt}', ars 149 ofthe Aet. Ordinari3y, msa bs dismissed on two aroiiads: fii'st cor.taiaed ia sub-section (2) of Section 'ance sompany wou!d have no riaht to qiiestion flie quantum of compe^sation in absence of any leave havirig bsen grauted in its f^voui' i?i tenrls of Section 170 offlis Act. It is xiot in disputs that the aoplicatioE un<ter Section 170 of the Act has bsen dismissed by leamed tl'ial C(5urt. Secondly merely because the certificate of psi'manent disabilit^' v,'as iss'ued by the doctor of i private hospital and was not issued by t^ie doctor of a GovenTmsnt hospital, it carmot bs said tllat based on s'uch certificats, award under Section 140 oftfae Ast csmiot be passed. 6. In this i.'iew of &S mattgr above. this a-roeal iireferrsd bv the T "-- ^' ~' -^r—- l- appeUamt is liable to be dismissedSand is hsrebv aismissed. <n N.K. Agrawal Judge