-"- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR fC.G.1 M. A. (Q N0. ) O 2 '7}-0f: 2007 9 APPELLANT CLAIMANT Ku. Hema D/o Shri Kalleram Gond, aged about 25 years, Resident of Village Jhajharkera, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.). VERSUS RESPONDENTS wft <? - 1. Dayaluram Son of Shri Lakhan @ Bhaduram Yadav; 2, Ramesh Kumar Son of Shri Anjoriram Tarak, aged about 40 years; Both are resident of Village Demar, Police Station Arjuni, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.). 3. National Insurance Company l^ Limited Branch Office Mobin Mah^l G.E. Road Raipur (C.G.). MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 ^^^•&^ ........^^ ^•-;\,.sc il^^-Y" ^" "--sA^ ~ ..<?"; fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR S.B: Hon'ble Shri Prashant Kumar Mishra APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A. (O No. 1037/2007 Ku. Hema Versus Dayaluram and others Appearance: Shri P.P. Sahu and Shri S.P. Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondentNo.3. IMEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 ORAL ORDER (21.06.2011) Heard. (2) This is an appeal for enhancement of the amount awarded by the claims tribunal. (3) The appellant sufFered fracture oftibia febula bone ofthe right leg. She was admitted in hospital for about 21 days. One Doctor Parvej has issued a certificate ofdisability mentioning the permaneat disability to the extent of30%. (4) However, the leamed claims tribunal has not believed the certificate on the ground that the said Dr. Paryej is not a member of medical board, nor a goverament doctor and has not treated tiie appellant. Even othem'ise, the appellant has only suffered fracture on the right tibia febula bone. (5) The claims tribunal has already assessed loss ofincome to the extent ofRs.2000/- per month and after applying the multiplier of 17 •'•Vi 1X1 z- the loss of income has been assessed at Rs.34.000/-. Since the appellant claims to be a labourer her income has been taken at Rs.l5,000/-peryear. (6) Leamed tribunal has properly assessed the loss and awarded just compensation. (7) There is no scope of enhancement of the amount awarded to the appellant. (8) The appea! fails and is hereby dismissed. 81 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge J c\"