^^ /"%- COURT 0s CHH.4TTI5^RH AJ M..4.N®.179/2006 CO-tAM: Hon'bieainS/ft.Nayak, Chief Justice <& Hon'bie Shri J. ADDeilant Claimant Reseond_ents Non-Appjiconts M* Nancharaiya Rao, about 52 years, S/o M* ftasaiya ftao, Supervisor, ft/o Kukurbeoa, P<S* Amanaka, Tahsi! A DEstrict Raipur (C.B) Versus 1. Ashok Kumar ^ond, S/o Jawahar Lal 5ond, Dnver, R/o Vjjjage TIvrana, P,5, Kusumunda, uistt. Korba (C.&.) 2. Dinesh Singh, 5/o H.MSin^h, Vehicle Owner, R/o Yadunondan ^gar, Tifra, P.5< Civil Lines, Biiaspur, Tahsii & Distt. Bibspur (C.6.) 3. The New Indian Insurance Company Limited, TTirou9h Divisional Mana9er, DivJsionoJ Office-Kachahari Chowk, Jai! ftoad/Koipur (C.&.) Shn Ahk Soni', Counsei for the appeiiant/CJaimQnt. ORAL (Passed on 3.4.2006) The foflGwing ora! order. of 1+ie Court by D&shmukh, J. In this appeal, the oniy contention by the for the is the hAA£r.has falled to consider 1+ie actua!, amount of incurred in treatment and the disabilit-/ of 15% in the by the However, upon a perusat of the record, we find that no prescriptions and bilts were proved by the appellant. The evidence of ttie treating Doctor was aJso not adduced before the iearned AA..4.C.T. •($) ^ . ^ fA-wt^fi^ u — J2-- In that view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the compensation of Rs.85,000/- awarded by the iearned M.A.C.T.,, does not cal! for any interference. 2. This appea! belng devoid of merit is dismissed according!y. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge