IN THE HI6H COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.6.\ MISC. APPEAL rONO. ^'^ OF 2010 ^ APPELLANT Claimant ^^, Kumari Laxmi Soni D/o. Shri Ramfal Soni aged about 23 years, r/o. Village - Nari Tahsil - Kurud, Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS. 1. Radheshyam Rajput S/o. Bindprasad Rajput ? ^^' aged about 50 Years R/o Village - Tarri, Thana - Gobra Nayapara, Tahsil - Nayapara, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) y^-^'' , y^~^ ^- C/^/ 2., Ratiram Sahu S/o. Late Shri K. L. Sahu ''^ ^f^. aged about 60 Years. R/o. Village Nayapara, ^ ,^..' Rajim. Tahsil - Rajim, Distt.- Raipur ( C.G.) 3. Branch Manager, /^ ICICI. And lembord General Insurance Company Ltd.. Tahsil and Distt.- Raipur (C.i&.) MEMO RANDUM OF MISC APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHiaES ACT ^ COURT OF AT APPELLANT (f^i s^?g» MA.(C) N0. 980 OF 2010 Kumari Laxml Soni Versys Radheshyam Rajput and others. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Sinaie Bench: Hon'bie Shri N.K. AgarwaE, 4^ Present : Shri Abhishek Saraf, counseJ for the appsiiant. Shri Sourabh Sharma, counse? for respondsnt No.3. i,rd on 3ra day of 2011) This is c-iaimant's for enhancement of compensatjon against the award dated 24-04-2010 by Motor Accldent Ciaims Tribunal, Dhamtari in Clajm Case No. 65/2009 whereby and vvhereunder the iearned Tribunal has owarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- along wi.th Interest @ 6% per annum frorn the date ofappiication for the injury sustalned by the appeliant in the accident a'ated 04-01 -2009. 3. Brief facts of the case are as under: On 04-01 -2009 tlie appeiiant/cEaimant was traveiing from Nayapara to Raipur aiong wlth her friend as pillion rider. Near VIJfage Jhankl, she was dashed by one motor cycie ard at the same tlme, the bus bearing registration No. C.G. 04/E/1632 being driven by respondent No.1 rsshjy and negiigentiy crushed her iegs as a resuit of which she sustalned grievous Injuries in the said accldent. Thereafter, she. has been admitted in Government Hospital, Dhamtari for treatment. 4. The appeJ!ant/c!aimant preferred an appiication before the Tribunai under Section 166 of the IVIotor Vehic-.ies Act, ciaiming t^^ 2. ^. compensation to the tune of Rs. 4,80,000/-, for the injuries sustalned by her in the said accident. 4. The learned Tribunai on a ciose scrutiny of evidence ied, materlal piaced and submissions made by the parties, heid the appellant dld not occur any loss of earning capacity pursuant to the sasd jnjuries sustained by her In the accident and avv'arded a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation In favour ofthe cEaimant. 5. Learned counsel for the appejlant wouid submit: the appeilant suffered permanent disabiement v^ithin the meaning of Section 142 ofthe Motor Vehicie's Act (hereinafter referred to as ithe Act') and as per Sectlon 140 of the Act, the appeliant is entltEed for minimum amount of compensation i.e. Rs.25,000/-. Award is patentiy IIEega!. Amount of compensation requires to be enhanced to the extent as provided under Section 1 40 of the Act. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 3 couid not dispute the above contention raised by iearned counsei for the appeiJant. 7. i have heard iearned counsei for the appeISant and perused the award impugned. 8, The appeliant has proved the injuries sustained by her In the accident by producing the disabiijty certificate and by examining doctor In thls behalf. The above certificate wouid show: appeiiant Is permanently disabled to the extent of 20%. Under Section 140 of the Act, the appeilant Is entitied for an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards no fauit iiablljty which is mlnimum compensation awardabis under the Act, In case claimant suffers permanent disabiiity. Therefore, the amount awarded I.e. Rs.10,000/- is psr-se iilegal. 9. The appeai is allowed in part. The appeiiant is entitied for Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the injury sustained by her in the accident instead of Rs. 10.000/- along witn interest @ 6% jntsrest per annu-m frorn the of appjication. Respondent No. 3/insurance Company is directed to enhancsd / -^•& 1%^^ 1^' "^\. •^^ :-3^ Kvr amount of compensation withln a period of two months from today. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shali be no order asto costs. —§^/ 7 N.K. Agrawal Judge