a«i' lljililillii| ililllilit^^^ 5S'ifi By;;i:!?^i3sl^-?'.^;'FI'^J''^'::^^.:;' ^ / ' ' '-:" ^s^^t(^t':^^iK:.^i^?f^^:^^:.y^::^^ '::::;';"^.'':-' 8ajftS?aI^Ii^;a'EffilQ^aI^.i®"^-ssH^li3^ :; fiSSiiSSiS^SSiiiiSiiS^i^iS^ t-^ j|j||J^j%|||^|j|J|j^j|||if||j^^ iiw,l€^:.Ri®l^ i®)Nii^^ :^yJ:?l'|||||l||||EI§lHF^^|'31E^ y%;'^^':;!I^B^It^^::'^yM1l®ff^ ;:,i::;|J|;:f|||;'ei!^|t^^|lQ^M§§BCTE^;,g^^ :^^['t.^t^^1^11llE^?i^lS"ip@''a.^f:^^^ .^3aiig3ns^'.?':'.^^';%pui..^.^'^ ;;t;,:\^^i:;^j^.©^).t^FnSjN^^^i^^^^ -;^:',L3^;-'^^5i^'JBgB^ri,^,IF^^ :''N^.[:?&^'aNt[BMis'l:'t^l-a^THA^O:y'3:;<SIB^ ;^'^.i.:^y^g'a^i^i^^,'::!pa^;:f^s^ ,^'^.,L:y''<|TB'a;(^T.r©inci:;/'^txis:jJ3i^ '^;'^:^.^^pa:tu^3jd,3g.^;'a:&ui]/\[^,}^^ .:i:^.:'':;:.;:.<^^^|^li^.^:S^,.^ £?^:':l'^^::!'''t"Q"3)^:Ft^u&;^IC[;'^ n'S':{;;''i;^"^&ll:;^:y.'-^^ '{iBlBQFtT.TietirBJi —sg^nA^^ p •].^Kf';ry<S|FBj^':.^g;,^.TOQ:ClB'''^3§V''.^ ^:t^f|^^C[IKTBM [IlQ'.'':":^ ..•^'.•^•):(:'€)-£))': ^ ^ ^o^ ?:^CT ,^AregpBi@;'^^^ •^^^':-?-.'3ndii[B^^-::-3fB:[]^ ';^'';M ;^:-9:te^WC^NP9f^';'It^^^-^B^N: ^^^^3^':T:tItff^8^^^]:'lo^§i;^.:;1'^^ l::;^,il:ri^%^^^:'i^:;' ':'^S^:-':'''®^tH^S^I.t,]a?HH^:'?^ !^i@l%i]®WiEOi TOG l s w^m-^C^ ^g^ ay:: •:3t'^Fi • 1,' i ^is]:% 1 ^ s ^ ^--^<^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANTS RESPONDENTS M.A.CNo.1240 of 2007 Nem Sinah & another VERSUS Akash & another (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal, J.l Present : Smt. Meena Shashtri, Advocate for the appellants. Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate for respondsnt No. 1. Shri HB Agrawal, Sr. Advocate with Smt. Meera Jaiswal, Advocate for respondent No. 2. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 20.07.2011) 1. This is owners' appeal against award dated 23.07.2007 passed by Ist Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribuna!, Surajput, Distt. Surguja (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 58/04. 2. As against Rs. 2,40,000/- claimed by respondent No.1/ claimant by filing application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accldent on 01.10.2003, the Tribynal awarded total sum of Rs. 75,000/- along with interest @ 6 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. / 3. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, material available on the record, and submissions of the parties, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of Tractor bearing registration No. CG-16-A/0395; since claimant was sitting in the Tractor as _-r_-- ^-flrr^*"n_ X ^&i^^ . J "is. vce/.e <ai-.. ~s!*it!i: '•'StSsiysf^'" passenger, exonerated the insurance company from its to pay compensation to the claimant and awarded Rs. 75,000/- as compensation in favour of claimant. Smt. Meena Shashtri, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit: the claimant failed to prove any injury sustained in the accident by producing relevant discharge tickets, injury report, medica! certificates and a!so by examining the doctor who has treated him and the Tribunal has awarded excessive amount of Rs. 75,QOO/- as compensation which is not sustainable in law and the same deserves to be set aside. On the other hand, Shri Sinha, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 1/claimant would submit : as per MLC report, the claimant had suffered multiple injuries including fracture in pelvic area, he remained in hospital for a period of two months and also suffered medical expenses and in view of above, the amount awarded is just and proper and needs no interference. 1 have heard the counsel appearing Tor the parties and perused the award impugned. Indisputably, the claimant has filed only MLC and X-ray reports to prove the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. He neither filed the discharge tickets of the Hospital in which he was admitted after accident nor has examined any doctor. A!l these facts have not been taken into consideration by th.e Tribunal while passing award impugned. Therefore, the -'^ ^. impugned award, on the face, appears to be contrary to the evidence available on record. 8. In view of above, the award being not sustainable in law deserves to be and is hereby set aside. 9. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the matter is remitted back to the concerned Tribunal for assessing the amount of compensation afresh in accordance with law. Needless to mention, the Tribunal shall afford proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence and to flle additional documents, if any. 10. Records of Tribunal be sent back Torthwith. 11. The Tribunal shall take decision with regard to amount already paid to the respondent No. 1 while passing award. Till then the amount shall not be recovered from him. 12. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 23.08.2011. No order asto costs. ___ _ _ Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge Sahu 1