^w^^w^- M.A. iC} N0.466 OF 1^** APPELLANT lciaimantl 1 Shatruhan Lai Chandrakar, S/o Bodhl Ram Chandrakar, Aged about 46 Yrs., R/o IVIana Bastl, P.8. Mana Camp Raipur, Tah. &• Dlstt. Ralpur (C.G.) Vejsvs MuResh Prajapatl, S/o ' Chandra Shekhar Prajapatl, R/o BSock "E" No.E/12, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Bajaj Alianz Genera! insurance Co. Ltd., TS-irough - Branch JVIanager, Branch 'Offtee Dubey Complex Pandari, Raipur (C.G.) ACT, 1994. ISInaSe Bench: Mr. N.K. Aaarwal^y Prese.nt : Shri S.C. Verma, counsei aiong with Shri Adltya Khare, counseS for the appeSlant. None fbr respondent No.1. Shri S.S. Rajput, counse! for respondent No.2. (Passed on 13th day ofAprll, 2010) This Is cjaimant's appeaj seeking enhancement of compensation in the award dated 04-08-2006 passed by First Addi. Motor Accident Clalms Tribunal, Raipur & First AddltionaE District Judge, Raipur (for short 'the TribunaS') En claim csse No. 69/2005 whereby and whereunder an amount of Rs. 70,000/- along with Interest @ 9% percent per annum from the date of appSicatfon tlii its payment, has been awarded as compensation in favour of the.appellant. 2. Facts briefiy stated are as under:- On 08-01-2005; the appelJant while going from Ralpur to Devi Laxmi Nursing Home by Hero Honda motorcyde bearing registration S.S. NO..C.G. 04/CB-3628, near Rlng Road No.1, ,<^^^, met Vi/ith an accident, with motorcycie bearing registration No.C.G.04/CH-2334 belng driven by respondent No.1 rashly and negiigently as a resuit of which he sustained grievous injuries in his left ieg. 3. The appeilant by fiiing an application before the Tribuna! under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, (for short 'the Act') ciajmed Rs. 41,00,000/- as compensation for the jnjuries sustalned by hlm In the sald accldent against the owner and insurerof motorcycle Ho. C.G. 04/CH-2334. 4. The iearned Tribunal, on a ctose scrutiny ot' the evidence led, materia! piaced and submissjons made, heJd respondent No.1 responsible for the said accident; the appeitant is permanentty disabled to the extent ot' 38%; awarded Rs.70,000/- as compensatlon for the injuries sustained by him In the accident aiong with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of application till its payment. 5. Learned counsel for the appeiiant wouid submit that the iearned Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation and the same deserves to be suitabfy enhanced. 6. On the other hand, (earned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/lnsurance Company Vi/outd submit that the appe!!ant is a Government empioyee; getting same sajary even after the accident. The fearned Tribunaj on due consideration, awarded Rs.70,000/- which in fact is on higher side. The amount awarded by the iearned Trlbunat is just and reasonabie which deserves to be upheld. 7. I have heard the iearned counse! appearing for the partles, perused the award impugned and record ofthe Tribunal. 8. On appredation of evidence; learned Tribunal has rightly held respondent No. 1 responsi'bie for the said accident. !t is not in dispute that the appellant is a Government employee, stil} jn the job on the same saiary and service condltions. Learned Tribunal awarded fojlowlng amount to the appellant: ^^••^ ^-s^ '^ 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. For treatment expenses Rs. 30,000/- For future MedicaS Expenses Rs. 5,000/- For Pain & Suffering For Attendant expenses For special diet For loss of earning capacjty Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 1,000/- Rs. 28,000/- Rs. 70,000/- 9. Looking to every aspect of the matter and Eooking to the fact that there Is no loss of earning capadty to the appellant as he is stilj working on the same job on same servlce conditions, in the considered opinion of thjs Court, the amount awarded by the learned TribunaJ is just and reasonable. 10. in view of above, i do not find any substance in the appea! warranting interference ofthis Court. The appea! being devoid of substance is liabie to be and is hereby dlsmissed. Sd/- N. K, Agarwal Kvr