^ A^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAEtMO -^ OF 2009T- i(ftgl& Benclf APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Appellant Non-Applicant no. 3 ^tlnited India Insurance Company Limited, In front of Anupama Talkies, Jagdalpur Distt. Bastar, through Divisional Office, Jail Road, Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ^ « Respondents Versus 1. ^ t. 2. ^ Jagdish @ Narayan, S/o Ram^l^l, aged 25 years, R/o Panarapara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (CG) ( Driver) Non-Applicant No. 1 G. Satish, S/o Satyanarayan, R/o Door No. 11/22, Ramalayam.Main Roiad, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (Vehicle Owner) Non-Applicant no. 2 Sheikh Jan Saida, S/o Sheikh Jan Sahib, aged 25 years, R/o Kewramunda Ward, Vrindavan Colony, Jagdalpur, • Distt. Bastar Claimant Claim in Appeal for settina aside the award, valued atRs: 51.817/- (Rupees Fiftv One Thousand Eiaht Hundred Seventeen only) XI-HC-78 W^T^r^Jch cTsrr 3TT^ff ^rNr +11*1(11 ffl*11dl 3^' '<ll<11(rt^, yTH<'<<16, fs|<?1W^< —^...N:A^c').^o,.<^_ ^J^»..»......^.^.»;»..,^ 3TTc{?T q^g? (^c|i^c|<^ET) ?^TW^rf?cT3:n^T 16-01-2007: 242&69 Shri Sanjay S. Agrawai, ^ Heard on admission. The appejIanVinsurer is passed by the Motor Accident Claim Case No. 243/2005 whert awarded for 40% permanent di^ pelvic bone as also in the right le^ Learned counsel for the (A) The insurer was not liabie) cover note Ex. P/20 No. 13-11-2004 was a fake docum^ Mahapatra N.A.W/1. (B) The compensation of Rs. MA.C.T. for loss of earning for th^ other point was urged. Shri Sanjay S. Agrawal, ie^ that permission under Section 1 to the appellanVinsurer by the cover- note No. 242969 Ex.P/2Q slgnatory of the insurance counsel for the appeilant, on b^i insurance Company did not take| for issuance of a fake cover note.l co^nsel for the appeiiant. a^grieved by an award dated 13-11-2006 (^laims Tribunai, Bastar at Jagdaipur in r^by compensation of Rs. 51,817/- was ^abiiity suffered by the ciaimant in the ap^eilant urged foliowing two grounds:- |for payment of compensatlon since the for the period of 14-11-2003 to i^nt and was so proved by'Balkeshwar CM^f<n41Ti ^i^<nT^:te^'<Ri^ii< ^ ^3Tf^'R'3TI^T 7t0 iealrned comri>any 24,000/- was awarded by the iearned period of 8 months was excessiye. No irned counsel for the appeiiant submitted of the Motor Vehicles A'ct was granted M.A.C.T. and aiso admitted that the was in fact issued by the authorized after receiving premium. Learned ing asked by this Court stated that the any action against the officer concerned Learned counsei for the ajppeilant during the course of arguments furnished certified copy of the st^tement of ciaimant, Dr, V.K.Jha, P.W./2 XI-HC-78 3TT^?T^T^I<=t) crarsn^Tgw^ HT^TI $h*1icb TwT '*INI<1<<, «>THyll«,fsKll^y ^,^.^^..^^ 311^1 MU^ ?^TW: ^f?cT 3T1^T r-—Z. '- and Balkeshwar Mahapatra N.Aj Ex.P/20 which are taken on recort ' Having heard iearned documents. So far as the evidence of | note No. 242969 for the period Honda motorcycle is concemed, that the cover note No. 242969 because Balkeshwar Mahapatra| office at the relevant period. branches of the Insurance Com| since it is not disputed that th^ Company after receiving the P/20 bearing No. 242969 and no authorized signatory, the liabilit^ established. So far as the second groui ciaimant goes to show that the disability in the peivic bone as a established by proving the X"Ray certificate Ex.P/18 as also by ciaimant has in his testimony cl( was hospitalized from 28-02-200^ period of eight months thereafter. income of the ciaimant as cbi^?<n41Ti Hi^<rtT^te^<Ri<^i< ^ 3?Tf^R'3TT^T |W./1 as also a copy of the cover note cou(|isei for the appellarit, 1 have perused the IBalkeshwar Mahapatra reiating to cover bf 06-11-2002 to 05-11-2003 for a Hero |this evidence does not ciinching!y show |Ex. P/20 is a fake document especiaijy was not posted in Vishakhapatanam He also admitted that there were four |>any in Vishakhapatnam. In any case, authorized signatory .of the Insurance am|ount of premium issued cover note Ex. jaction whatsoever was taken against the of the Insurance Company has been id is concerned, the evidenc®ied by the lclaimant had suffered 40% permanent |iso in the right ieg. This fact was also 1 report Ex.P/17 and permanent disabiiity ^xamining Dr. V.K. Jha, P.W./2. The tarly stated that due to the accident he I to 16-03-2004 and was out of work for a |ln this view of the matter, taking monthiy ps.3000/- per month, an award of XI-HC-78 3n^TcRT^i<t) <T^T3TT^T$b^icb ^ ^ *i i*<^i ra»*ii<h 3^ •^Nl<rt^, ^Tfl<H41$, {sldl<M^< ^44|cb ^ ^ *' ^ ^ .v<^y^ ^ ^. ^ ^Cp^ ^OQJ z^, 3TTc{?T 45<<ti (y»^<s«^T) ?^fTW^f5cTW^T ^3>- compensation of Rs.24000/- for| befaulted with. In this view of the matte) counsei for the appellant fail. Th] cbi^fc'i41Ti ^i^dT^te^if^i^K ^3lf^TW^T |the laid up period of eight months cannot t', both the grounds urged by the learned ^ impugned order awarding compensation of Rs.51817/a is impeccable. In the result, this appeaij^ being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage ofadmission. !n view of above, M.(C) disposed of. P. No. 83/2007 for grant of stay stands Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge P.T.O.