>\ t'v INTHEHIGHCOURTOFJUDICATUREAT BILASPUR, CHHATTISGARH M.A.NO. / f 4^ /2002 APPELLANT CLAIMANT l^ .^.^%^ '^%,: '^ ' VERSUS Dwarikaftasad,S/o LalanRam, caste Koir, aged aibout 21 years, ooctyation and agricultur^ Rto VSUage Qihindia^ 1hana &. PO. Patana» Taihsil Baikunflqnir, Distt. : Korea(CG) RESPONDENTS ^^: 1) National Insuranoe CQn^any Liimted, NON-APPLICANTS ' ^ titttou^i Brandi I^fan^er, Korba &andi, PO. KoAa, Distfc Korba(CG) (INSURER) / 2) Ramlail Jaiswal, S/6 Nfeihadev Prasad I Jaiswal, gged aibout 41 yeare, R/0 / ^Uage Chhindi^. fliana & Po. Ratana» 1 T1ahsaBaikunflytB,Distt.Korea(Ca) (OWNER) 3) Sanflal S/o Budhram, aged about 29 yeare, occigation driver, R/o Viflage Bardia» diana & Po. Patana, Tahsil - Bailaindq?ur, Distt Korea(C.a) (DRIVER) APPEALUNDERSECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 FOR ENHANCEMENT OF THE AMOUNT OF AWARD _ __-—- L XI-HC-22 3^ ^i^id^, ^TO'y^Ko, {«i<ni<i^< 3l 1^1 Msicft ^A6V ^Moi^i^- WR^TT9fnTW^'^^^^"^^^W[ 200 3:n^T^T {^rt^^n^T 9b^ll<=t) ^cT 9b^ll<=t) ^TI^T ?^cTRTC ^?T <sbHTd41-l ^H<nT^1Wt<f^^i< ^^ti^TT^T^T vlde totie 19-12-2006 Shri Ashok Shukla 4r appellant. Shri Anand Kumar Company. None for respondents Np.2 The case was listedl compromised; therefore, itwasji Learned counsel for both Learned Additional M4 (henceforth 'the Tribunal') compensation ofRs.3000/- Feeling aggrieved this) Vehicles Act, 1988 (hencefortpi enhancement of compensation|. Dwarika Prasad (PW-|1 received injuries on his right He was medically examined| statement is duly corroboratecl He also deposed that he is to the tune of Rs.50,000/-, support the above During arguments that atleast appellant shoul Rs.10,000/-. 4nd Shri O.P. Yadav, counsel for the Gurtta, counsel for respondent No.l/tnsurance !&3. before Lok Adalat, but could not be [referred to the Court for regular hearing. the parties are heard finally. ttor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, award dated 31-1-2002 allowed the appellant. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor 'the Act, 1988') has been preferred for ^nkte. I) in his stetement has stated that he », left knee and other parts ofthe body. So far as injuries are concerned, his with medical examination report (Ex.P/3). un|der treatment and he incurred expenditure his| working efficiency has been reduced. To evidence nolMedical Officer has been examined. tearhed counsel for the appellant contended ly have been awarded an ampunt of (^^^r) XI-HC-22 3^T5RT Rrii<=h3n^n" $wt^^rfi^T L Gowr ^-^ ^i^Kn^, ^Tfl^4i<o, {^€ni<i^< 3T1^T qsrai ^1*1^11 ^w ....^A.^A.W lc^ f^s 200 3TT^T ^cnw^rw ^ —'L- CM^T<n<i1vi ^i^^T^f^tiF^^K ^3:if^T^n^T Medical Officer has nc|t been examined and Jt appears that due to jgnorance appellant could nof submit medical vouchers and failed to eall Medical Officer for evidencej but it is a known factum that whenever a person met with an accident agony. An amount of Rs.301 ^uch person remains under shock, pain and ?0/- towards compensation appears to be a meager sum, if in place of R|s.3000/- it would have been Rs.8000/- that should have been a just comrtensation. In the result, the a^peal of the appellant is partly allowed. Respondent No.l/lnsurance pompany is directed to pay an amount of Rs.5000/- (Rupees Five Thoi been awarded by the Tribuna The aforesaid amounl and in default respondent Nc jsand Only) in addition to what has already shall be paid within a month from today .1 shall pay interest at a rate of Rs.9% per annum till realization. Resp|ondent No.1 shall also pay costs of the appeal to the appellant and tjawards counsel fee shaJLl^y an an)ount of Rs.500/- (Rupees Five Hundr|ed Only). Sd/- V.K. Shrivatava Judge (^^fe^)