^ 3^Ef ^|t<4t^^ ^Tfi^^Ko, i^0(^y ^l^dl ^b^lcb' "" ' -R^ 2007 3H^T ^^R (4C<^<^) ^TI^T^ ^ich ^srrw^T ^^ich ^RfTW^rf^T-STT^T Misc. ApoealfC) No. 1147 of 2007 AppeUant T1he United India Insurance Qoinpany Limited Mount Road ,B. No. 83 Nagpur (Maharastra) 1]hrough : Branch Office, ^aigarh(CG) \Versus RESPONDENTS VBHICLESl ^j_- Appearance: Shri Dashrath Gupta, co GRPRJ — ^7 — 50,000. cbl^fd^l^ tTF^Tf 'Sf 'fe^t' <r^-^l< ^3tRw3TT^T B|hushaa Singh, s/o ofLal Babhu Siingh, aged about 36 years, o^cupation contaractor-ship, R/o vpage Jhakhagali, Baikunthpur, Rjaigarh, TahsU and Distdct R|aigarh(CG) 0|m Prakash Rajbhar, s/o Rjamanaad Rajmar, aged about years, Occupation - Driver, R|/o Tekanaka Wad Road, D^epak Nagar-Nagpur (I^aharastra) Through Palvmder S^ngh Man, G.E. Road, T^tibandh, Raipur(CG) P^lviader Siagh Maa, s/o Sardar T^hal Singh @ Pahal Singh, O^ner, R/o Takaaaka;, Rambai N^gar, Quarter No. 62 Nagpur 8& ^esent address R/o G.E. Road, T^tibaadh, Raipur(CG) MISC. APPEAL UNDER SBCnONA73 OF MOTOR ACT. 1988 fansel for the appellaat. ^TT^T^ R;^ch 'WT^TT^T 9h44ich ^ 3^r ^Tpn^r, ^flwT?, [si^i'yy iTraw g^gR"- •••—•• -"•••"••••••--••-••""^ 200 7 3TI^?r TI3TO ((ic(Il<s<<^) GRPRJ— FS/24\ ^TT^R ^f^T ^T^T ^ ^ — DB: Hou'ble Shri L.C. Bha^loo 85 Hon'ble Shri Sunil KuAiar Siaha, J, J QR^L ORDBR w L.C.Bhadoo, J. Heard on adinission. The United ludia Insi^raace Compaay has preferred this appeal u/s 173 of the Additional Motor Accident case No.05/2007, whereby 60% disablement of the Rs.l,09,000/-for treatment atteudaat aad diet, Rs,l( amenities and thereby m all | Learaed counsel for though the certificate was effect that on account of th^ disability, but that disability] chl^(<rl4l"{ 'RR^f ^f f^t ipsi-^K '^^tRm^n^r 10.2007) /lotor Vehicles Act, 1988, beiag aggrieved by the award dat^d 5.7.2007, passed by the leamed plaims Tribunal Raigarh iii claiin fhe learaed Tribunal, assessiag lamiant namely-Bhushan Sio.gh, awarded the compensati|on amount to the tune of Rs.3,24,000/-under the hjeading of permaaent disabiUly, Rs.1,100/- for loss of iacome on account of fhe claimant re^nained ia hospital, Rs.3,000/-for |,000/- for paia aod sufferings, Rs.25,000/- for future treat^nent, aad Rs.10,000/- for loss of jRs.4,82,100/- has been a^arded. fhe appeUant argued that even •ubmitted by the claimaiit to the ; accident, he has sustaiaed 60% was on flie leg portion and it was not on the whole body, thejrefore, fhe Tribunal has wrongly assessed fhe loss of60% mc<t>me ofthe clamiaat ....,0,000. -3^3! r^||<4|^, ^>T{i^<|(S, (s)01^^< —.....^.-..^:...<:.;...1L^.. Nl^dl sbNlcb •^ 2007 ^I^T^ R^Jch 'cr^T^TR^T sh^ljch L >• l^ GRPRJ—FS/246, 3^?T V^K (lic<^<^) ^na:R ^Tf^T ^T^T 3 We have perused fhe j|mpugned award. In para 12 offhe award, leamed Tribimal h^.s held that as per tlie disabiUty certificate, issued by fhe Me| has been exaaiiaed aad he fracture of fhe pelvic bone ti has further held that as per| a Contractor aad eam hii contractor is of such a nat^ iajury sustamed by hiin, he| clmmaat as Rs.3,000/- aa^ i.e. Rs.l,800/-p.ia.aiid by cfr>l<4(<rt4lrl "RTR^Tf "^Ts^l iPsi^K '^'3^RW3TT^T dical Board, the claimaiit Bhushaa Sragh had sustamed 60^o permaaent disability, as he sustaiaed the fracture of P^Mc bone on right leg. In order to estabUsh fhe permaaent di^ability, Dr. SunU Kheinkha, who operated aad treated fhe i4jured-clamiaat - Bhushaa Siagh, |has proved ftie mjiiries sustained by the claimaat aiid the t^eatment given by him. Even the claimaat had to undergo o^eration for second time also and the Medical Board has give^i certificate regarduig disableinent of the claimant, sustamedj on account of the accident oiid \) the extent of 60%. The Tribunal I the evidence of claimant, he is not getting any work after the a4cident. Earlier he used to work as UvelUiood aad the work of fhe re fhat ia order to carry the work, he is required to run plllajr to post, but on account of fhe is not able to work to.fhat extent The Tribunal after assesspng the monthly iacoine of fhe assessiag fhe loss of 60% inconie Japplyiag fhe multipUer of 15 ie. disabUity to the extent ofj L' 1800 x 12 x 15, assessed f4e loss ofearmng as Rs.3,24,000/^ Lookiag to the nat^re of the work aad permazieut 60%, we are of the considered &00. ^L 3?n^T^?T R^ch 'cT«IT^37R?T ?FRT^ > ^- N3- ^u^uf^r 3:^r •^i'qic'i-q, ^Tn'yjt<s, isi<yl>i'y^< ^ll^ldl ^b^leh' ^.A, C. \\ "^ 2007 3n^?T 'q^R (4<=<^<^r) ^ITWHf^T^H^r opinion tiiat tih.e findiag appreciation of fhe evidencje aiid material available on record aad the saine does not suflFd Shri Gupta further Medical Expenses, an aiilount of Rs,l,09,000/- has been awarded, which is also exce^sive, We have perused fh| claiiaant, amountmg to ^ amount has been awarded II clannant is entitled for Rs.1,09,000/- under the m^dical head. For the foregoiag rea^ CM^(<rt<fll 'RfTR^f ^f f^^t ^^K ^3^FTa>TT^[ of fhe Tribunal is based on the r froin aay ioftrmity. argued that under the head of ^ paragraph 18 of fhe award, ia which, it has been spec^j&cally rcferred the various bms regardiag treatment aad i|iedical expeuses iacuired by fhe s.1,09,000/-, therefore, the said ^ased on the documentaiy evidence aad m that respect also, fh(e Tribunal has not committed any illegaMty or mfirmity on c^mmg to fhe conclusion that the tiie aoiount to the toiine of ons also, we ai'e ofthe considered opiaion that the compen^ation amount awarded by the Tnbunal is not on higher si|le and the amount awarded by the Tribunal is just aiid reasoijiable, which does not require aay mterference by this Court. The appeal being djevoid of merits is liable to be dismissed^^d accorduigly, lt is dismissed. —_—___ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge GRPRJ— FS/246—2/2007 -- 50.0QO.