3D^r ^I Rl-<[°h 'cT^TT 3Ti^?T sp*11^ g^q- r^i<<i<i'><<, »Tf)t)'i<s, Rx'ii^y ^ NINrtl *MI<*„.....M.:...ft.^...[0;^ ^ ....^..,.:.....:....^......^..^.^..,.^ ^^^ an^?r 'vw (ipfg»i^T) 'reiWTrfrasii^r APPELLANTC- (Claimant) RESPONDEMTS/: (Non-applicants) 3. (Appeal under Section Divlsio&Bench: - Hon'ble Mr. L.C. Shadoo and Hon'ble^Mrt Sunil Kymar Sinha, 25-9-; Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, (t Heard. The appellant has preferr^d Vehicles Act, 1988, for enhan< aggrieved by the award dated 1 Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg,| qira[<'l4tl +lffi<!'lf ^^St <^>Tt$i< ^sifiifsii^r Satyabhama, W/o Late Daneshwar, Aged about 40 years, R/o Khapri Heeru, Post Tawera, Thana Ranchirai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus - Rekhram @ Rekhu, S/o Rewaram Sahu, aged about 24 years, R/o Viliage Junwani, Post Sikosha, Tehsil Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Driver of Tractor bearing Regd. No.CG -07/D-2050) Babu Lai Jain, S/o Rajmal Jain, R/o Village and Post Pairi, Tehsil Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Registered owner of vehicle Tractor bearing Regd. No.CG-07/0-2050) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Malviya Nagar, Durg (insurer of vehicle Tractor bearing Regd. No.CG-07/D-2050) '73 of Motor Vehicie Act, 1988) JJ. ounsel for the appeilant. this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor ;ement of the compensation amount, being 8-6.2007 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor in Ciaim Case No.56/2006, whereby learned XI-HC—78 3^T '•^W'^Sf, ^WW, Rf^Krfy 3(I^f 'SKV kvfl ! W aflScil *til* 1 TWiW ~?C^ •H^ 200 ao^riRR; (ijgfg^a) ^IIW^feT'CT^T *l<lfd41-t iTTCff tf.lS^ ^"?R •^siRm 3ii^i Tribunal has awarded in all Rs.^,95,000/- under the following heads, along v/ith interest at the rate of 8% per anrlum: - 1. Treatment: 2. Speciai diet: 3. Conveyance: 4. Attendant: 5. Future ioss: 6. Future treatment: 7. Pain & suffering: 8. Permanent incapacity: Rs.50,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.10,000/- Rs.3,90,000/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.50,000/- [Rs.25,000/- Totai: Rs.5,95,000/- In case the award amourjt is not deposited within two monihs, then the interest shall be payable at the ra) Learned counse! for the ajspellant submits that wrong multiplier has been applied in this case. Havinfl heard learned coi award. The claimant has claimed that she was aiso running a jeep eof10%. insel for the appellant, we have perused the herself to be agriculturist. Further she claimed ks taxi. Perusal of the impugned award reveals that compensation amount more Ijhan sufficient has already been awarded to the ciaimant under various heads. T[he claimant is simply an agriculturist. As per para 15 of the impugned award, ^he has admitted in her cross-examination that she used to give her agricultural l^nd on yeariy lease basis and she herself was not looking after the agricultural o||;erations in the field. As far as incom.e through running the jeep as taxi is conc erned, no proof was produced regarding the same. !n spite of that fact, i^arned Tribuna! has awarded future loss at 'Swei^^sf^f, •a-^w'is, Ri<?»i«y SII^T.^1 K-fi* wnaii^ii sb^i* Soma VWv\\ **1|cb .KI...A,:..(<^..io 3n^?r iraq; (ipf^g^i) 20(^? wiiwHtosii^r Rs.3,90,000/- and Rs.a),000/- fc the said amount is just and reasi any manner is insufRcient or not Therefore, we do not find be dismissed and it is hereby dis Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge °b>^T<rt<fll 'RTO^ff ff ft1^' <pq+$i< ^affiiHsn^i 'r pain & suffering, which comes to Rs.4,40,0 ^nable. It cannot be said that the said amoui lust and reasonable. any substance in this appeai, same is liabli missed in limine. o?^/^ Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge lii-f