-HC—78 ^n^r ^ fqii.ch 1cT^l'STT^T 5FTIT°F T^T ^l^l^, ^>Tf1^11<o, {s)01^y •qmw ^tN? ' +t •^ 2007- 3TT^?T XR^ (4^?l<di<^) '^TTW;(crf^T ^TI^T APPELLANTS: Non-apDlicante No.2 & 1 RESPONDENTS: 1. Kirtan Lal Bareth, S/o Chaifram Bareth, aged about 40 y^rs, R/o Kamrid, Thana Khakhagaon, District Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) Chhamman Lal Bareth, S/o 2. Chaifram Bareth, aged about 40 years, R/o Kamrid, Thana Khakhagaon, Disfrict Janjgir- Champa (C.G.) -Versus- 1. 16-10-2007:- Shri Ajit Singh, counsel | Oral order dictated on £| Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. Heard on admission. <=hl<4(<rl^1T1 ^l+l<?ff ^\fe^ <F»l^l< ^stRFT^TT^r Pritam Anant, S/o Shobharam Anant, aged about 23 years, R/o Laban, Thana Kasdol, District Raipur (CG) 2. The Oriental tnsurance Company Ltd., Branch Transport Nagar, Korba, Disfrict Janjgir, Office at BHaspur (C.G.) (Appeal under Secti|on 173 of the Motor Vehictes Act) Division Bench: - Hon'bTe Shri L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sidiha. JJ. for the appellants. ais. 3^T??T f<Tli<=b 'cT^TT ^H^T $t>4-li<=b 'S^ ^|<q|<y><1, t$Tfi^<|<o, fs)01^^< Nl^ldl *Nlcb ..H.A...fe2...11.A.?..^. 3:IT§t?T ^ffK (^^<s|<^T) ^ •^ 2007 ^«iiW<if^a ^^ This appeal is direcled in daim case No.16/2006 by Tribunal, Baloda Bazar, Rs.5,43,000/- as amount of (respondentNo.1). ^gainst the award dated 31-8-2007 passed Ithe 1rt Additional Motor Accident Claims wh^reby the Tribunal awarcled a sum of compensation to injyred Pritam Anant Brief facts are that respjondent tractor-trolley which was bein^ date of the incident. At the ti< and he received injuries. Ultinr| his both tegs. Though fractor-t^ fastened on the owner becat agricultural purposes, was beji carrying of Muram. This appeal has been f| trolley. Learned counsel for th^ been awarded on higher side, I and the liabiljfy has wrongly be^n We have perused ttie JrfipU! evidence of witnesses filed recorded a finding vide para-1(| G.S. Bachhu (PW-5), it has ^ bofh legs ofthe injured had the injured is 100%. He has g^/en befen <^iA<f<n<flTi ^H<nl ^fest <pai^i< IF)" 3?iRFT an^r No.1 wasworking as labour in the used for fransportation of Muram on the ne of untoadingjtractor-trolley tumed turtle ately, there was permanent dtsablement of •olley was insured but the liability has been ise tractor-trolley, wrtijch was insured for ng used for Gommerdal purposes i.e. for led by the owner and driver of the tractor- appellante argues that compensation has was not a case of permanent disabfement fastened on the owner. jrfipugned award and have also peru^ Uie llong with the award. The Tribunal has of the award that from the evidence of Dr. |een established that due to said accident paralyzed and disablement sustained by his report Ex.P/67. As the Tribunal has 31T^T ^T f<T11<4i ^^T STT^T 5b*1lct) L 3:^ET ^11^1^, •E$Tn<111<o, f«t<?»l^^< ^^^^......a,.A.:...C.£>.....l!.^..........^^^ sn^r xra^ (^f^?r) ^?TTW^feT'3^T recorded the said finding, the( workingas labour, got permanj being paralyzed and in that s|i perform his labour work and s() would amount to permanent] recorded finding in this regard. | fefore, it is clear ttiat the injured, who was snt disabtement on account of his both legs tuation, certainly he would not be able to ich kind of disablement,in case of a labour, disabtement. The Tribunal has r^htly So far as Jiabiljty is Tribunal in issue Nc^. 3A andl thaton the fatefijl day fractor-ti|i since construction of a road recorded that perhaps Muram| appeHant has also filed copy of| stated vide paras-2 and tractor-trolley which was bein| discussed vide para 14 oftiie out a case by their evidence they have taken a plea in taken by them. Therefore, in Jjg for agricultural purpose can finding has been recorded thal Muram & it was engaged in breach of pol'icy and on this exonerated. conderned, As far as quantum is the Tribunal has recorded a fini <=bl^(dAJ1T1 'RPT^Tf '^\feT3t <P»i^i< '^3TRTH3TT^T (, the point has been dealt with by the 3B. The Tribunal has recorded a finding olley was engaged for carrying Muram and ^as gojng on, therefore, finding has been was being taken to tiie road side. The Ithe evidence of PW-3 Shiva, who has also 4 of hi4 evidence that Muram had been carried by unloaded by them. The Tribunal has alward that ttie appellants have fried to make |iat soil was being taken in the tractor but the v^ritten statement that the Muram was being jht of such pleading evidence of taking soil be accepted. Therefore, ultimately, a |tractor-troltey was being used for carrying than agricultural purposes, which was ground Insurance Company has been nbt otner codcerned,1, para-18 of the award shows that ng that the injured was earning Rs.3,000/- 3Tr^T ^?T fqriw 'cCT 3n^T $ti^ict) ^- 3^T ^WW^, ^T0'yllto, fa<^W^< ^ ^........H...Aic}...ll^..........^ ^,^ 3TT^?T XRR7 (4^^<^) 4 ^«iiW<i%a 3T|^T ^t>»i^f<n<i1Ti ^ti^^ ^f^^ iFai^K I? 3Tf?FT 3TT^T per month and after deductitig Rs.1,000/-, Rs.2,000/- was held to be monthly income and annual in|some of the injured was held to be 24,000/- and looking to the age ofthe jnjured, which was in between 23-24 years, multiplier of 17 has been appl|ed. Loss of earning has h^een calculated jn sum of Rs.24,000 x 17 = 4,08|000/-. Apart from that, Rs.1 lakh has been Irds expenses incurred jn treatment of the awarded by the Tribunal injured, which appears to be amount of Rs.25,000/- has be|Bn awarded as amount which may incur in future treatment and Rs.5,OOQ discussions and in the facts ^ deem that amount awarded by] based on bills etc. Over and above, an <- each has been awarded for conveyance expenses and special diet e|to. during the treatment. In this manner, Rs.5,43,000/- has been awrard^d in favour of tiie injured. For the foregoing ind circumstances of the case, we do not the Tribunal is on higher side. Therefore, contentions fail. The appeal being devojd| hereby dismissed. at theadmi^sion stage jtself. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge [aised by learned counsel for the appellante I of merit, is liable to be dismissed and it js Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge