HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR Miscellaneous ADDealNo.432 of 2004 APPELLANT/: (Claimant) RESPQNDENTS/: (Driver) (Owner) (Insurer) 2. 3. Tularam, S/o Chandu Lal Panika Aged about42years, R/o Kudhurtal P.S. Lalpur, Tahsil Lormi, Distt. BMaspur (C.G.) Versus RamadharSingh, S/o Kunwar Chakradhari, Aged about 52 years R/o Village Chandali, Tahsil 1-ormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Bhagwati Prasad, S/o Samelal Aged about 55 years, R/oAmeri Akabari, Post Dagori, Tahsil Bilha, Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.) - The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Normal School Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) •'•:. tf' {IVIisGellaneous appeal under Sectioh 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988} Present: / -, - ..: ! /': :'. ,' { .'.' /'."'. ; Mr.Avinash Chand Sahu, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, counsel for the appellant. Mr.Vimlesh Bajpai,counse|forrespondentNo.1. None present for respondent No.2, though served. Mr, Varun Dubey, Advocate, appears on behalf of Mr. AbhlsKefc Sinha,counselforrespondentNo.3. Division Bench: - Hoh'bleMr.T.P.Sliarmaand Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Chandrakar. JJ ORALORDER (13-9-2010) T.P.Sharma. J: - 1. By this appeal, the appellarrt/claimant (injured) has challenged legality & propriety of the awarddated 10-2-2004 passed by the 3 AdditJonal' MotorAccident Glaims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Mungeli (for short 'the (Slpims Tribunal') [ri Clajm Case No.21/2003, wheceby againstlhe claim of Rs.5 lakhs;the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.45,®00/- along with interest atWe rate of 9% per annum on account oflrnotQr '^ accident..'-' .'.'::, '. ' ' ::1 , — ./-'.:'•-11 '! 'l"': ;t. . ;. it 'ifi^ w^\ 2. Award is challenged on the ground that while awarding compensatiSrf, the Claims Tribunal has not considered permanent disabilityof the appellantthattooforthreeyearsandhasawardedlowcompensation. 3. As per the case of theappellant, on 10-3-2001 theappellantsustained irijunes on account of motor accident by tractor bearing registratiori NO.MP-26/E-9482 and trolley bearing registration No.MP-26/E-9483 driven by respondentNo.1, owned by respondent No.2 and insured wjth respondent No.3. FIR was fodged andthe appellarit was examined by the doctor. The appellaht was treated by the doctor, hespent money and was not able to perform his regular duty. The appellant is worfcing as labour. On account of the aforesaid accident, the appellant has elaimecl compensation of Rs.5 lakhs. While filing written statement respondent No.2 has denjed the accident and claim. Whjle filing separate written statement, respondent No.3 has also denied liability.to paycompensation. 4.0nthe basis of averments, issues were framed and after affordihg oppprtunity of hearing to the parties, the Claims Tribynal has awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/- towards pain & suffering . 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the award impugned and record of the Claims Tribynal. 6. Leamed counsel forthe appellant vehemently argued that in the pnesent case, the Claims Tribunal has notconsidered the periodofdisabiUlyand' has awarded low compensation in accordance with Ex.P-8, the disability certificate which was valid for three years and, therefore, the iClaims Tribunal was required to consider paymentof compensation at least for three years. However, the Claims Tribunal has not considered fixa)|ion of payment of compehsafion for three years and thereby comtnitted ': illegalrty.. . ;,•''- \-/;. ' \1 : ,. • ' ' ' •1' 1,1 '1'' .11 7. On the other hand, learned counselappearing on behalf of respOndents Np.1 & 3 opposed the appeal and submitted that the Claims Tribunal has rightlyawarded Cbmpensation. ' ' 8. In onjer to appreciate theargumentS advanced on behalf of the parti^s, we have examined the award impugned and record of the IQIaims 'Tribunal.',, .".'1" '.•:,••;:.;1. ' ..• .' ' . y-'"l l fei..£<a -;:«it;,iSiAtSsafi- i i '"^Sl ? 9- ...^ Soi 1 9. In the present ease, the alleged disability certificate Ex.P-8 did not disclose disabled part of the body, even otherwise, it has not been issued by the competent Board. For the reasons best known to the appellant, the appellant has ntit examined any doctor in support of his treatfflent. On the basis of sonie documents, the Claims Tribunal has awarded .Rs.10,000/- towards mecJical expenses, Rs.25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 10,000/- towards pajn & suffering. 10.0n due consideration and after considering the evidence,espeeia|ly in, absence of mediCal evidenee, we do not fihd any ground for enhancement of compensation. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissedand it is hereby dismissed. No order asto costs. "Sd^—^ /;;::1'''.''/:.':;"!! • „„ sd/-, _ l' :"'/''::''',;'; T.P.Sharma 1 R.N. Chandrakar Judge" | Jud8e '.;>lt,'., :)>..;,^ i:i:» i^-li ,i,^.l^,u,l