3^q- ^141^, ^Tfl^JI<o, ^^l^y WTOT yK^-^-^--10^-——--^ 200 ?- 3n^ST TTsRR (^cll^^) ^TI^T^ R^icb WT 3TR?T sb^l<=b ^" c ^ '"^... ^cTTW^f^T 371^1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC. APPEAL Siagle Beacfa : H|oa'ble Sfari Dhireadra Mishra, J APPELLANTS NON-APPLICANTS 1. 2. B; D RESPONDBNT CLAIMANT Presesst: Mr. Yogesh Paadey, Mr. C.R. Sahu, respondent. 11.05.2007 This is owner's appeal jpassed by Second Additional <=hNid4lrl ^li|<rif'^fecst ^^K ^ 37RTH'37T^T C) N0.1098/2005 Prakash Agrawal, son ofShri Surajbhan Agrawal, aged about 22 years; Surajbhaii Agiuwal, Sou of Shri Trilok, aged about 45 years; B|3fh ai'e Resident of Sharab latthi Road, Islampara, SaraipaU, |strict Mahasamund (C.G,) VEftSUS Parikshit Sao, Sou of Late Shri Jagaanath Sao, aged about 50 years, Resident of Vmage Bonda, PoUce Station Saraipali, District J Mahasaaiund (C. G.) ^omisel for flie appeUaiits. V|ininendra Mishra, counsel for ag^iast tlie award dated 10.5.2005 |Iotor Accident Claims Tribunal, GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007— 50,000. T^i ^W\<^^, ^»Tfi'HII(S, Rl(y>l^^< — ..^2^.^ ..'/o.^p................. «414dl sb^lcb"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""^ 200 ^ 3TT§t?TT^RF (4c<flQ<<^) ^i^r.cRT'^ncF ^T^T^TR^T $h^l<=h :.t- c "e^ '^ciTW^Tf^T 3TRST 2— Mahasaaiund (C. G.) m Claim Rs.98,676/- has been claimant/respondent Parikshit| by hiai io. the niotor vehicle involviag Track No, M,P. T^ appeUaat No.2 and dnveu by the relevant tiBie. ^ase No. 18/2003 whereby a sum of aw^rded as coinpeusation to the Sao towards the iajuiies sustaiaed accident dated 23rd August 2002 [9080 registered in fhe nanie of prakash Agrawal, appellaut No, 1 at said Leanied counsel for the| award on tlie ground that cash Bieaios proved by the however, fhe doctor prescribia| exaoiined to prove th.at the by hioi to Uie clainiaiit for fh.e| from the eviclence avaUable oil Rs.27,000/- was paid to the cl^ appeUaiits even before filing o^. has not been considered by fh^ quaatum. of conipensation, Ou the other haiid, subniits fhai^ttie claiuis Tribub.al for th.e .actaal expenses iac^ towards his treatment and 110 tiie Tribunal towards the p| CM^tcll4<r1 ^iH<^T ^f fs^l iFal^K ^'stRpTSTI^T appeUaiits has assaUed fhe above th.^ugh the award is based on certaiii clauiiant/respondeut duriiig tdal, tlie above medicia.es, lias not beeii mediciiies were ui fact prescribed [uijuries sustained by liun. Further, record, it is evident that a SUBI of! cl^imant by way of coinpromise by the fhe clauii petition aiid fhis aspect 5 claiais Tribunal while decidiag the Idamed counsel for the respondent has awarded coBipeiisation only |irred by Uie clauiiaiit/ respoudent ^.dditional sum has beeu awaixled by ^in aad suffenn.g-Qi_ot3iei^heads GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 —50,000. 'S^ss •^ii-4i<y><q, ^»Tfi'yli<s, fct0i'y^< 3?TT^T,5FT'Rprig? WT3TT^T 5h^l<=b c f^. ^A^ inm ^^..^..^..•../O.M. 3n^?T 'q^TcR ('licrf^^ST) •W^ 200^ ^H^R '^rf^n 3?n^T -3- coiigiSEnB^^t^ submits fhat alk)Bg Mith^.th&t^ ticKet'of-Ex.P/15 as: ateo lt%t claimaiit was referred to M^ fu37fliertreatmbeiit: L : ^ ^l t have iie^rd leamed^cM haye ^erused fhe rcconi as als] cofcmsel wfcs l^^in?A:&e^isc]iai^^^^l^^ adinifted ia the hjospifat^il only on 31.10.2002 i.e. he tlian. two montiis. Further, Ui^ for Uie Biediciaes purchased Ex.P/160). Thus, considerinlg record, the grounds taken by award, caiinot be sustaiiied. In tb.e result, tiie appeajl to be disniissed aiid is accord4igly cbNi<rt<flri ^{^<nT '^'fe^t <IM^I< '^3^R5:n^T ;^^it made by fh.e appellaiits. He tatlon he has also filed Uie discharge %. reporf of Ex.P/3, by which the ^^:dical College Hospital Raipur for ^..-1 for the respective parties aad %^tfche iinpugned award, fefc it is evident that the claiinaiit was ^ August 2002 aiid was discharged hospitalized for a period of Biore clauiLaiit has also filed cash nienios hiai for his treatinent (Ex. P/ 24 to Uie overall evidence available 011 1|he appeUants for assailiiig fhe above ^Y being devoid of substance is liable .gly, disraissed, Sd/- ^DHIRENDRA MISHRA Judge GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 —50,000.