^s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hon^ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhanwar, M. A. No.949/2003 APPBLLANT Claimant Sukhsagar s/o Devnarayaa Patel, aged about 50 years, R/o village Tarda, Thaiia Korba, District Korba (CG) Versus RESPONDBNTS 1. Kishorilal, s/o Tikaram Patel, aged Noa-ClaimLants about 38 years, 2. Nagendra Prasad Patel, s/o Tikaram Patel, aged about 42 years Bofh are R/o vUlage Tarda, Thaaa _Korba, District Korba (CG) 3. Soufh Eastem Coal Fields Korba, Through fhe Chief General Mnager, Korba, District Korba (CG) 4. The New India Insurance Co, Ltd., Korba (CG) APPEAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF THB MOTOR VEHICLES^ACyr Appearance: Shri Abhishek Saraf, counsel for the appeUant. Shri M,K, Baeg, counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2. None for respondent No.3, Shn Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for respondent No.4. ORAL ORDBR (03.08.2010) R.L. Jhaawar, J. 1, The appeUaat has filed fhis appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhaiiceinent of fhe award N, dated 15.9.2003. passed ia Claim Case No.08/2002 by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Clainis Tribunal, Korba (CG) (ia short 'the Tribunal1). The appeUaat/clamiaiit filed a Claim Petition under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act, claimmg corapensation of Rs,ll,30,000/- on account of injuiy sustaiaed by hun in fhe niotor accident on 27.2.200Q. The Tribunal has awaided Rs.50,000/- as fhe total anioiuit of conipensation to fhe appeUaat/clainiaat Brieffacts arc that on 27.2.2000, at abut 9.00 pm, fhe appeUaat/ claioiaat -Sukhsagar Patel was stanidiag ia front of his house and talkiag wifh his fnends, at fhat tiaie, Nagendra Prasad was drivia.g Jeep beariag registration No. MP 26F/0968, which was of S.E.C.L. aad iasured wifh respondent No,4 herein, was driving fhe Jeep rashly aad negUgenfly aad dashed the appeUaiit, due to which he sustaiaed iajuries. He was admitted to hospital aad accordiag to fhe treating Doctor; he got 20% permao.ent disabiUty ia his leg. The origiaal driver of fhe Jeep was KishorUial aad the Jeep was beuig driven by Nagendra Prasad. The clamiaat was workmg m M.P.E.B.(Now C.G.S.E.B.) in civil departaient aad was earamg Rs.8000/- per monfh. Respondents No. 1 to 3 have denied fhe facts ia their written statemient aad stated tiiat Kishorilal, who was appoiated by SECL as a Driver of the said Jeep, was driving the Jeep at ftie tioie of accident. Munna Srivas aad Nagendra Prasad were sitting in the Jeep. Nagendra .^•^ /"& F2fe.i^ ^s^^ ^'./f' © Prasad was not driviag the Jeep. They pleaded fhat the appellaat hioisetf is responsible for the accident. 5. Respondent No,4/Iusuraace Coinpaay ia his written §^>Xmr^^ o.tated-^has stated fhat fhe driver was not haviag vaMd [ce at fhe tinie of accident Respondent No.3 allowed Nagendra Prasad to drive fhe Jeep, tihiereibre, ^ fhere is a breach of poUcy aad Insurance Coinpaay is not Uable to pay tihe ainount of compensation. 6. After evaluating fhe evidence available on record and heariag Uie parties, learaed Claiois Tnbunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.50,000/- on account of compensation to fhe claimLaiit due to injury aad 20% pennaaent disability. 8. Learaed counsel for fhe appeUant argued fhat the accident occurred on account of negUgence of fhe respondent no.2, due to which fhe appellaat has got 20% permanent disability. He fiLirfher subnutted that fhe Tnbunal has awarded a veiy low conipensation, whereas, fhe appeUaat is not able to work properly, due to perman.ent disabUity. He subniitted fhat the Tribunal has awarded only Rs.10,000/- on accoxint of raedical expenses, therefore, coxnpensation shoiild be enhaaced. On tiie other haad, learaed counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 supported fhe award aad stated that the award is just aad proper. Learaed counsel for fhe Insurance Coinpaay stated fhat the Jeep was not driven by a person, having valid Ucence aad fhere is a breach of poUcy, fherefore, the <-^^.-'-' learaed Tribunal has rightly exonerated fhe Insuraace Compaay. 10. I have heard learaed counsel for fhe partles at lengfh aad have also perused fhe record of fhe Clalms Tribunal. ^^ ^' 11, It is clear fhat fhe Jeep was being driven by Nagendra Prasad, who was not fhe driver of fhe Jeep and also he was not havmg a valld licence at fhe time of drivmg the Jeep. The origuial driver of Jeep was KishorUal, an eniployee of SECL. Nagendra Prasad was driving fhe Jeep rashly aad negUgenfly aad dashed fhe appeUaat, who was staadiag ia front of his house, resulting iato 20 % disabUity to hini; It is evident froin fhe evidence of Sukhsagar (AW-1) i.e. clamiaat aad Phaguram Patel (AW-2) and fhe docuinents available on record, fhat the appellant was staadiag ia front of his house aad Nagendra Prasad was driviag fhe vehicle ia a rash aad negligent manner aad dashed him, due to which, he sustamed grievous iajuries, resulting iato 20% permaaent disability. The permaaent disabUity certificate Ex.P/6 is also on record and agaiast fhis no other docuinent has been filed by the respondent. 12. The Trihunal has drawn a findiag in para 24 fh.at there is no evidence for loss ofiacoine, as the appeUaiit, who was aa eniployee of CGSEB and has received fuU paynient during fhe tune of iUness on account of inotor accident, It is also adiaitted by fh.e clauiiaat ia his exaQiiaation iii chief fhat Rs,30,000/- was spent by liim as niedical expenditure but, he has not produced aay .*-....,.•' ff'£ ^ v; •/. --x^- v ^) document to fhis effect. Therefore, the Tribunal has rightiy awarded Rs.10,000/- under the niedical head, which is just and proper aad also awarded Rs.40,000/- towards 20% permanent disabiUty lookiag to Ex.P/6 ie. disabUity certificate after evaluatmg fhe evidence aad fhe docunieuts available on record. 13, The Tribuual has awarded Rs.10,000/- on account of medical expenses aad Rs.40,000/- ou account of 20 % disabiMty aiid fhereby awarded a total suni of Rs.50,000/- as the amount of compensation, which appears to bejust aad proper iii fhis case. 14. After close scrutmy of the evidence aad fhe documents available on record, ia fhis case, ia my opiaion, fhere is no iUegalily or perversity ia the award passed by the Clainis Tribunal, warraating iaterference by this Court. Accordiagly, fhe appeal beiag devoid of inerits is Uable to be aad is hereby disinissed. t. S siuuta 15. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge