^ ,^/- IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR M.A.(C) No.- ^f}> /2009(S.B.) APPELLANT THE ORIENTAL LIMITED, THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE AMBIKAPUR, DISTRICT -SARGUJA (C.G.) Vrs. RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS :- 1. SMT. SANGEETA W/0 RAJU PANIKA, AGE 21 YRS., RESIDENT OF MOHAN C'OLONY, THANA - CHIRMIRI, TAHSIL- MANENDRAGARH, DISTRICT - KOREA (C.G.) RESPONDENTS/NON-APPLltANTS :- HIMALAY KUMAR S/0 RAMJIT RAM, AGE 23 YRS., C^STE- PANIKA, RESIDENT OF GOVlNDPUR, THANA - SURAJPUR, DISTRICT - SARGUJA (C.G.) RAMKUMAR S/0 GENDURAM AGE 50 YRS. RESIDENT OF NORTH JHAGDAKHAND, TAHSIL MANENDRAGARH, DISTRICT KOREA (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 ^auiau^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon*ble Stiri Justice Prashant Kumar P4ishra M.A.fONo. 706 of2008 APPELIANT RESPONDENTS Versus The Ortental tnsurance Company Limfted Smt. Sangeeta and crthers MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTtON 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLEACT.1S88 Shri Sudhir Agrawat, counset for the appeliant. ORAL ORDER (07.07,20101 Heard on admsssion. (2) The claims Tribuna! has awarded Rs.75,000/- as compensation to the respondent No.l/ctalmant, a iady aged about 21 years, who suffered fracture of right Seg OR her knee bone on account of accictent invojving Jeep No. C.G.16 B/0656, which was driven bythe respondent No.2 and owned by respondent No.3 on the date of accldent. The accident tooR place at village Lai, P.S. Manendragarh and thereafter the claimant was brought to the hospstai at Bitaspur for treatment. (3) Learned counset for the appellant has submitted that the Snsuranoe Company was granted permlssion under Sectlon 170 of the IVIotor Vehicie Act to rasse a$S the defences whlch were otherwlse availabie to the owner hence thls appeat to chailenge quantum ol compensatlon has been preferred. (4) Learned counset for the appellant submlts that the cSaims Tnbunal has awarded an excessive amount of compensation without there being any proof of medlcal evidences. He aSso subm'rts that grant ^ -^s^^ of Rs.40,000/- on thls count is excesswe and that an ampunt of Rs.^),000/- towards pain and suffering Is ateo on the higher slde. (5) On perusal of the record it woutd appear that the claimant has submitted the bllte ofthe Tejkaur Nursing Home for Rs.26,760/-. There are other bllts of the sald Nursing Home and the Medical Store. The ctalmant has atso submitted a prescription sSip. in her statement the c(almant has stated that she Is stlll suffering from pain on her rlght teg. (6) As the Medical Officer treating the ciaimant was not examined, the ctaims Tribunat has not awarded any amount on the head of toss of working capacity or loss of income. The claimant has claimed cpmpensation of Rs.4,20,000/-. The Trlbunal has aiso refused to award any amount for permanent djsability. (7) Keeping in vlew the fact that the cialmant Is a !ady and had sutfered fracture and is stin suffering from pain on her right ieg, the amount of Rs.30,(%)0/- awarded towards pain and suffering is not on higher side. (8) The amount awarded by the ciaims Tribunat appears to be just and proper. The Instant appeaS preferred by the Insurance Company js without any substance, it faits and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge \c.