:C-22 3TT^T"^ R^ich 3?i§^? 5h^jicr»^rfi^ h l1^^*^. .'s-^. + ^S^ ^WM^ ^Tll-M^Ko. J^<r11<iy 0 3^?T 'CRRF ..^A:.L°.^' 7e3/68 "^. 200 *11Wr[T 5b^|cb •I^ST' 3?n^?T ^^T^TBrf^r APPELLANT Ralesh S/o Late| R/oShaij] Dhanitari Versus K|umar Sahu, aged about 25 years, Ramramayan Sahu, Caste Sahu, aijiti Colony Chowk, TahsU and Distt [ (CG) RESPONDENTS 1. Siyar^m Joshi, aged about 35 years, S/o Roop | Singh Joshi, Caste Satnami, R/o Jalaii|ipur Ward, (near Deewan Talab), and Distt. Dhamtari (CG) 2. Tahsi Raj K S/o R/o. MISCELIANEOUS APPEAll VEHICILE^ DB: HON?BLE SHRI DHm^NDRAMISHRAA^ HQN»BLBSHRI DILIP RAdSAHEB DESHBSUKH. JJ <=M^(<n<fli '^m^ff ^ 'feczt <p3l^dl< '^'^rf^m^TT^T |umar Kurrey, aged about 30 years, [<hcmurain Kurrcy, Castc Satnami, Ramsagarpara, TahsU and Distt. itari(CG) Dhanjitari 3. The iUnited India Insurance Company Ltd. ]|Crishna Complex, Kachehari Cho\vk, Raipilir(CG) UiNDER SBCTION 173 OF MOTOR ACT. 1988 dvocate, for fhe appellant. >plication for condonation of delay in 3^12-2008 Shri Vimlesh Bajpai, 4 Heard on I.A. No. 1, afc filing the appeal. The application is al^owed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. [Tft^ ^p^^f 3Ti^?['^r (^'iJch ^^ s'b+li^ ^f^^ + 'T^r ^INH^, ^nl^Ko. fa^Kiy 3^T T^^ . ^. .- ^ACO..^- '705 /og '^ 200 "fsR^y' ® HW^l 5b*1icb 3'TT^r'^nw^rf^r Dhamtari vide award datedl cbi^I<n<i1ri '^TFI^Tf ^ 1^x3t ^^K ir 3Tf^H 3TT^T 2. This is claimants app^al for enhancement of compensation as leamed Additional l^otor Accident Claims Tribunal, i, 7-1-2008 passedin Claim Case No. 66/2006 has awarded ftie ^PpeIlant a sum ofRs. 1,34,000/- as compensation for mjuries s\ accident dated 26-1-2006. 3. Claimant's case befoil the date of incident, he ^ [istmned by him in fhe motor vehicle e fhe Claiins Tribunal was that on as retuming 6n his bicycle to his home, when the responden|t No. 1 driving fhe Bajaj Motorcycle, dashed wifh his bicycle, as| a result, the appellant feU from. his bicycle and sustained injurles over his hand, leg, jaws aiid other parts of the body, his tiire^ teefh were broken and he sufferai multiple fracture of wris^ bone. He was admitted ui the Dhamtari Hospital, where I|ie remained hospitalized for a period of two months and with 1(hese pleadings, a total sum of Rs. 14,31,000/- was claimed a^^ compensation. [^^fe^ s^n^T^i (c[Tii<^ ^^ 5h^icb ^f^a ^ + "3'sr ^|<4ld^l, ^Ti1<-t^<5. fa^i^y 3^?rxra^ ^ >, /. 'ft CO ^b, ^03/68 /^ ^l+ldl 9b*1lcb "^ 200 '^re^T' ^TT^T'^fT^R'^rf^r 4. The respondent No. and he was proceeded written statement denying contended fhat the claiman The vehicle in question wa| and the liability, if any, is to| exp|arte 5. The respondent No. 3|- the averments of fhe claint driver of the vehicle was nt vehicle was plied in breaclji and, therefore, the insurai|ice available on record, held fhjat of rash and negligent drivir|g in physical injury and <=ni^t<n<flri iTFT^Tf ^ f^T^t' iFaK-dK '^^Tf^m^TT^T did not file his written statement ;. The respondent No. 2 in hte tie avennents in the claiai petition, has submitted exa^ei^ted claim. ^ insured by the respondent No. 3 |be satisfied by the Insurer. - insurance compaay also denying petition, took a defence fhat tiie yt having valid driving licence. The of conditions of insurance policy company is not liable for any compensation. 6. Leamed Claims Trit|>unal, on fhe basis of evidence tfae accident occurred as a result of the respondent No. 1, resultu^ peijmanent disability to the extent of [Tft^ ^n^^ w^r^r R;iw 3?n^T ?t)Hich ^i%a c^ + ^o^ ^ll<41<rl<LI, ^•al^<i<o, fc«ni<i^< S^[ T^ra? |:^'CO ^15 •'703/0^ HW^t{ 9b*4icb ^ 200 '^^ST' 37T^T ^<TTW^TT 20%; the veNcle was beixid insurance policy. Conside|ing sustained bv the claunant ahd was not able to work for t^ injury, a sum of Rs. 14,000j on treatment; Rs. 8,000/- 5,000/- for loss of eaming 5,000/- for special diet an(^ members in treating the inji Rs. 32,000/- towards abov( of Rs. 2,500/- and assessi permanent disabUity to th< monfh i.e. Rs. 6,000/- per 5 sum of Rs. 1,02,000/- h| eaming and thus total a awarded. ^l^t^^ll 'RTR^ff ^ 'feTst ipal^K ^r ^ti^pT'sn^r driven ui breach of conditions of the nature of the injuries also considering that the injiired b months because of the aforesaid ^- was awarded toward expenditure for physical and mental agony; Rs. ^ithin ttie period of treatment; Rs. expenditure incurred by fhe fainity ired and accordingfy, awarded total heads. Assessing monfhly income ^ig loss of eaming capacity due to extent of 20%, at Rs. 500/- per |rear and applying multiplier of 17, a is been awarded towards loss of sum of Rs. 1,34,000/- has been [Tft^"^fe^ ^TF^r^? ^W^ 3T?^? st»*iic^ 'yRa /~': + "^aST ^<NH<LI, ^Tll^l^Ko, [cil<ytl<1<i< ST^T 'cra^ ^c-)-^o.7o: 5 ^W^\{ 9b*<l<^ 200 ^f^Vt' 377^T'^rr^R ^rf^r 7. Leamed counsel forj fhe appeflant subinits that fhe Tribunal has erred in hold|ing tliat the claimant suffered only 20% pennanent disability. fhe appellant was eaming assessed at Rs. 6,000/- per|year Its 8. We have heard learneji counsel for the appellant We have perused the impugned awaj^d. th^t 9. It is not in dispute doctor to prove fhe disabilitjy said accident, however, ^ claimant and his witnessle certificate, which has not documelnt not produced any and, fherefore, m our <=hi^f<rt<i1l 'W^t ^ ft^ <F3l<^i< ^3rf^Tq3TT^T The Tribunal also ignored the fact :s. 150/- per day and loss of income is also inadequate. fhe appellant did not examine any sufiered by the claimant due to the n fhe basis of statement of the ;s, and on the basis of disability peeii duly proved, the Tribunal has assessed the disability to t|ie extent of 2C^/o. The appeUant has to establish his monthly income cjonsidered, fhe assessment of tihe [Tft^^fe^ -^,^ 3T[^T'^I Rtl[<=b 3T^T 5t)^ich ^f^a inuuN^-' ^st ^l^ld^l, ^nl^^Ko. fGi<rti<iy 3TT^9T '<T^^ \:.^....^.?.:..'7£?3/(38 "^I. 2( ^w<r\\ 5b*ll<^ •^^T' 3^?T^C<TTWHf^T Tribunal that the claimant is just and proper. 10. Keeping in view the ^yas eaming Rs. 2,500/- per nionfh cbN(<n<flr1 'HFRTf'? 'fe^t ipsl^K ^^^cFTW^r overall evidence adduced by the Claims Tribiinal during tri41, we are of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has awarc|[ed just and proper compensation to the claimant-appellant 11. The appellant without| and is accordingfy dismisse^ Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge substance, deserves to be dismissed Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge [Tft^ ^n^^