i \ APPEAL UNDER SmTION, 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT FOR THE V ' I i i&rTHE_HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISHGARH AT BILASPUR WW gig: “No: “‘"1¢§"g;ogg C%‘y‘ > ‘ V WHANCmNT OF THE AWARD /’ x’k APPEBLANT?‘ g Ra'jendra Prasad VJaiswal % C ’IMENT: "' V S/o Ganesh Prasad Jaiswal’ aged about 47 years, OCCupatign :‘ Seiwhice ( Silk Department ),~/R/o. Vill : Prgmnagar, P.S. : Premnagar Tahsil z Surajpur. Distt : Surguja (, C G ) $ ‘ ,7 . V r, w. , REsPONDENTs Rééhm a11as__5hamim ' NON‘APPLICANTS S/o. Ramjan Khan aged about " ‘28 years, .R/row Vill : ' W Narayanpur, P.S. Ramanuj— nagar, Tahsil : Surajpur Distt 3 'S_\;_r_grjgrj§¢ ( C.G. ) ( Driver ) Ram Kripai Sa'fiu S/o. Ram— ‘ Kumar Sahu»—R/o Vi_l1 : Nara— yanpur, P.S. Ramanujnagar VTahsil ': Surajpur. Distt :l Surguja _( C G ). ( Owner ) The Oriental Insurance Cc. r Ltd through Branch Manager; The. Oriental Insurance Co Ltd... ’Branch Office : Manegrdragarh'koad; Near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur _ Distt : Surgujia, ( C.G. ). ( iheurer )7 //" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon’bie Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishta Shri Amnu Ghosh, counsel fur the appellant. APPEAL U§DER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT ORAL ORDER (08.09.2010) .* ‘ The appeliant has preferred the appeal for enhancement of the amount oi compensation. The Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.3,000/- as lump sum compensatibn. l ’k _, -v\~ (2) AccordingLthe appellant he was grievously injured in the accident which took place on 28‘“ May. 2002 and that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is on lawer side. (3) Learned counsel for the appellant weuld submit that die Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence in iw true perspective. (4) p On perusal of the award it 13 to be noticed that me appellant has not proved that any grievous injury caused to him. Referring to the injury report, X-ray report and other documens, the Claims Tribunal found that the appellant had suffered simpie iniury. (5) lt has also been observed that the appellant has not submitted treatment slips and the biils for purchase of medicine. He has also not examined any Medical Officer. (6) ln view of the said tacuna in the case of the appeilant the amount awarded by the Tribunal is found to be just and proper. (7) There is no ground for enhancement of the amount of compensadon. The appeal faiis and is hereby dismissed. .‘C/ Sdl- Prashant Kumar Mishra / Judge MA. No.125 l 2003 APPELLANT . Rajendra Prasad Jaiswal Versus RESPONDENTS Rashid alias Shamim and others.