, \ a: ‘ - ..... V ‘ gg \ x, r ‘ ‘ M < v \ I HRGH CQURT OF CHHATTI$£IARH AT BILASPUR MAC N0. 126 of 2008 (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTQR \IEH!QLE$ ACT) (SB: Hon'hle Mr. MK. Aaamal. J.) Present : Shri Gautam Khetrapal with Shri Rakegh $ahu, Advmcaies for the appeilant. Shri Prashant Gupta, Advocate far respmndent No‘ 1 & 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawm with Shri P. Dutta, Advocates for respondent N0. 3. QRAL OREMIR (Passed 0n 0%.08.2011) 1‘ This is claimants‘ appeal seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by lllrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in claim oaee No. 143/07 vide award dated 12.1 22007. 2. As againat compensation of Rs‘ 21,5D,ODD/— claimed by the claimant/appellant by filing application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 198$ (for short ‘the MV Act’) for the iniuries sustained by him in the motor accident on intervening night of 1546‘“ Cotober, 200$ the Tribunal asseesed and awarded total sum of Rey 3,14,000/— along with interest @ 7 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment 3. The Tribunal, on a close ecrutiny of the evidence ieci by the parties, materiai available on the record and submi..ions of the parties, held : the respondent No. 1 i.e. driver of Maruti Car APPELLANT Sanjay Singh @ Pappu Sonkar VERSUS RESPQNKDENT$ : Jafar Sicidique & others bearing registraticn No. CG-1Q-1061 respomibie for the said accident; respondentr‘NQ 3fThe Orienta‘ Insurance Cwmpany Limited Habie for payment of oompensatian to the claimant; assessed and awarded total sum of Ra 3,14,000/- ag campensation in favour 0f claimant 21$ against the respandem No‘ 3 Le‘ The Orienta: m$urance Campany Limited. Shri Khetrapal, {earned counsei appearing for the appeuant wouid submit : the Tribuna! has famen in error m awarding 10W amount of compensaticm ignnring the dissabmty of the appellant which’was to the extent of 6O percent. On the other hand, 5hr} Suohir Agrewat and Shri Preehant Gupta, teamed counsel appearing for respondents would submit as per certificate of Medical Board, disability of the appellant was to the extent of 3O peroent only; appellant old not examine the treating olootor as well as the doctor who issued the disability certificate; has examined doctor Aehutoeh Tiwari who was neither treating doctor nor had issued certificate, and therefore the amount of oompeneation awarded by the Tribunal taking into consideration the permanent disability to the extent of 3O percent is intact on higher eide and doee not cell far interference. l have heard the counsel appearing for the pertiee and peroeed the award impugned as well as reoorde of the Trihnnel, For the reason best known to the appeiiant, he has neither examined the treating doctor nor has examined the doctor who had issued disability certificate. Doctor Ashutoeh Tiwari WW (AW-2), examined by the appenant, has stated in para 7 0f hi$ statement that in the ordinary cmjrse the head injury ifs recoverabie Within 3-4 months. A$ per di$ability oertificata issued by District Medina! Board, Bilaopm (Ex‘ W178), the appellant sustained temporary dieability to the extent of 30 percent. The Tribunal was quite iiberat in awarding the amount of compensation in foiiowing manner : Sir Head Amount is? No. awarded t Pain and suffering 20‘OOOI- 2 inconvenient 10,000/. 3 Medicine and 25,000/— treatment 4 Fare of Hospitai 6‘OOO/- 5 Treatment of 6,000/- Physiotherapy 6 Attendant 10,000/- 7 Travelling expenses 7900/- 8 Special Diet 10,000/v 9 Future treatment 20§000L 10 Loss oflncome 2‘O0,000/~ Total $143000!- 8. When the matter is examined in the above brought features of the case, l do not find any scope of enhancement of compensation in the award impugned. 9, For the reasons mentioned hereinahove, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to he and its hereby dismiesedi No order as to costs. ........ N’K 53d]; ' Agarw- r Judge m Sahu