HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SingteBench : Hon'ble Shri Dilio Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Miscellaneous Apoeal (C.l No.385 of 2008 Appellant Claimartt Resoondents Non-Claimant Ganeshiya Bai, W/o Rama, aged about 58 years, r/o Village Salhewarpara, Dhamtari, Tahsil and Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) versus 1. Shrawan Kumar, S/o Bhagirath, by Caste Siloliya, aged about 30 years, R/o Amapara Dhamtari, Tahsit & Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 2. Bhagtrath, S/o M.R.Silotiya, aged about 55 years, r/o Amapara Dhamtari, Tahsil and Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. The Branch Manager, The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., Batak Chowk Dhamtarl G.E. Road Krishana Complex, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act Present : ShriAmanKesharwani.counselfortheappstlant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 25th day of March,2008) Heard on admission. (2) The appellant is aggrieved by the award dated 14-12-2007 passed by the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Dhamtari (henceforth 'the MACT') in Claim Case No.14/2007, whereby in an injury case compensation of Rs.25,750/- has been awarded. (3) Brief facts are that on 05-02-2007, the appellanVclaimant, who is an old lady of 70 years, sustained grievous injury in the peh/is bone. The MACT awarded compensation as under: \, >"S2j \^"\'^ t^1 €^ SI.No. Head 1. Expenses incurred in treatment 2. Loss of eaming for three months 3. For pain anel sutfering 4. For special nourishment and diet 5. For future expenses In treatment Total = Amount (Rs.l 12,28) 4,500 5,000 2,000 2,OW 25,750 (4) Shri Aman Kesharwani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant did not dispute that the appellant/claimant did not suffer any permanent disabitity, It is also not in dispute that no medicat ewdence was adduced by the daimant. It was urged that the loss of income was assessed on the lower side. However, considering the fact that the appellanVclaimant admitted her age to be 70 years and the facts and circumstances of the case, 1 am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded bythe MACT isjustand reasonable. (5) In the result, the appeal has no merit and is dismissed at the stage of admission. sd/~ Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Gopa\ \