(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. FIRST APPEAL NO. 3279 OF 2008 Rajaram @ Raje Karbhari Gaikwad. .. Appellant (Original claimant) versus 1. Baburao Yashwant Sangale. .. Appeal already dismissed as against respondent no.1. 2. The New India Assurance Co. Ltd., .. Respondent Ahmednagar. (Original opponent) ....................... Mr. V.S. Bedre, Advocate, for the appellant. Appeal dismissed as against respondent no.1 vide court's order dated 15-4-2009. ........................ CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J. DATE : 26TH MARCH 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. V.S. Bedre, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant. (2) 2. The claimant feels aggrieved by the inadequate award in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 473/2002, dated 11th February 2008. According to Mr. Bedre, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the future earning capacity having been freezed owing to the accident and disability, is lost track of by the learned Judge and consequently, the same deserves interference. 3. Having gone through the order under challenge, I find, the learned Judge has considered the medical expenses to the tune of Rs. 1,00,679. 77 Paise for which bills were produced and accepted claimant's entitlement for the same. So far as permanent disability of 35 % is concerned, the learned Judge has construed the same at the rate of Rs. 1000/- for 1 % and reached to the amount of Rs. 35,000/-. The nature of injuries, as is indicated in the medical certificate, if re- examined, it is more than clear, the claimant had suffered fracture to radius ulna and an injury to his head. There was stiffness to knee and ankle and hence permanent disability was showered at 35 %. It is not a case of amputation nor a case of impairment. The stiffness could be resolved by exercise. In the result, the contention of inadequacy of the award does not sound to reason. (3) 4. The other difficulty that the claimant is bound to face in the present appeal is, the appeal is dismissed as against the owner of the vehicle and it is accelerated against the Insurance Company. The indemnity to the Insurance Company will be projected only if the claim succeeds against owner of the vehicle. 5. In the result, the First Appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ( K.U. CHANDIWAL ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/fa3279