^^yj^ a ^ c IN-THEJjIGhLCQURT OF CHHATOSGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.NQ /Z3-^ /2004 s-^ "EW'.i.Mti?! PETITIONER 7— /CHHENDU, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, SON OF SHRI HANDO, CASTE MOD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE TELGA, AARAPUR, GUDIPARA, DISTT. BASTAR (CHHATHSGARH) VERSUS R.ESPONDENTS T }-• (7 1\<^> ^'^ ^i"/^y SHYAM KUMAR NAAG, SON OF LAKHMURAM NAAG, RESIDENT OF MAIGNAR, HIRLABHATA, P.S. DARBHA, PO NEGANAAR, DISTT. BASTAR (C.G.) (DRIVER OF VEHICLE^ .- / ^ <K4 .K ^ ^a^ ^^ ^^y 2. SHABHU KASHYAP, SON OF / TUNDA KASHYAP, RESIDENT OF DILMILI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAIKOT, P.S. KOYEENAR, DISTT. BASTAR (C.G.) (OWNER) UNITED INDIA INSURANCE ^2 COMPANY LIMITED, THROUGH ^BRANCH MANAGER, OFFICE JAGDALPUR, IN FRONT OF ANYPAMA THEATOR, JAGDALPUR (CG.) (INSURER^ MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 F THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 :-'•<, '-'•asniai^' \ 6 ••!~h ..y l!il^e'T r?i 3^-r -^l^i^-^ y^TR-^T^, rry-':'n'^:R- .M.A-..^^-^.. T ^?3? ( •^i^^'E;} 'wr-y. 'gr^t s^v ^"^r^Tp? T^^ -^ TS^ •H^^-n 3; stfw y^s S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. A^arwal 10.07.2009 1 Shri PP Sahu, Advocate fi+the petitioner. Shri Srikumar Agrawal, ^r. Advocate with Shri Anand Gupta, Advocate forthe responcjent No.3. With the consent of the iparties, the matter is heard finally at motion stage. The instant appeal is diretrted against the award dated 01.09.04, passed by lllrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur, in claim ^ase No. 16/2004, whereby award has been passed in fav^ur of petitioner amounting to Rs. 4000/- with a direction for r^covery of remaining amount which has been deposited by t|ie insurance company under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicl^ Act (for short 'the Act'). j The brief facts of the ca^e are that, on 09.05.02, the 1 appellant while traveling on a tractor bearing No. CG 05/9494 i as labourer, the said tractor met with an accident due to rash 1 and negligence driving of respolndent No. 1 and due to said I accident, the petitioner sustaindd injuries and his right hand and left finger was amputed. 1 ••?••< ^ ;S»^ f /f °-;\i-.:-L.' r?- ^- "—3; ?!rtTT=TO -^-rJ ^i^;'^-..,' ^-TllJJ-'i|^', r^TlS'L{u^ •^ 2001^ •Rgro:'gt?" sw^- .W^T^ITC^?^^?) •^-^Ty^ '^IT^T ^ T'?^? fl'^17 •^•stfgi?w The petitioner preferred |a claim petjtion before the Tribunat claiming compensation ^o the tune of Rs. 2,43,000/-. The Tribunal, on due appreciationj of the pleadings of the parties, evidence led orally as well as c|ocumentary, and submisstons made by the parties, earlier passec( an award under Section 140 of the Act amounting to Rs. 25.000/-|in favour of the petitioner. The same award remained unchatl^nged, thereafter Rs. 4000/- alongwith 6 percent interest from tl|ie date of accident till recovery and a direction has also been pa^sed by the Tribunal regarding recovery of remaining amount out favour ofthe insurance company. of 25000/- paid as no fault, ii Shri Sahu submits that as th|e award passed under Section 140 ofthe Act remalned unchallen^ed and therefore, direGtion for 1 recovery of remaining amount coul<p not be passed by the Tribunal jand by passing such direction the T]ribunal has committed illegality. |He further submits that as infact finger of the appellant was jamputed and therefore, it canncjt be said that even without )...-_. .. i jexamining the Doctor, the appel|ant is not proved permanent I 1 idisability. | ] Per contra, Shri Srikumar Agrawal, supported the award. However, as far as disability is eoncerned, he did not dispute the L,A .*»tb«...*^..^.....»».te, ...„)„.,.. ^^ %. v 'VlW ~3 rf-.]<<!<»f!I .y^iu;!^ T=p=tp-nTJ' ,...aq.A-....^...^<^2,........... ^ -l'* ; 4 -;•-°—f- -;-^T i Sahu TOWi: 3W S! -Q> 4- ^-^TSJ^ ^TP^ "=T f^t '?f-T^!< ~» sffire MRSS' fact as the amputation itself csjuse permanent disabillty. The factum of amputation of hands fingjer is not disputed and therefore, it cannot be said that the appellanlj Rs. 25000/-. is not entitled for the amount of Having heard the counsel having perused the record, 1 am o appearing for the parties, and the considered opinion that the award needs modification to the exltent of amount of Rs. 25000/- as awarded under No fault Award andlthe direction given in para 13 of the impugned award is concerned, it is liable to be set aside and is hereby set aside and the appell^nt Insurance Company is not entitled to recover any amount fror(i the amount awarded under No fault award. The appeal is party allowed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge