IN THEHON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M^AJCINo. fp 1 "1 /2009 2. Appellant 1. Vaibhav Sharma (Non-applicant) S/o Subhash Sharma Aged about 20 years, R/o Village 85 Post- Salheghori, Police. Station- Lorrai, Distt.' Bilaspur (C.G.) [AutoNo. C.G. 10-T0383- Driver] Bhavesh Sharma S/o Subhash Sharma Aged 22 years, R/o Village &, Post- Salheghori, P.8.- Lormi, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) VERSUS Chunoo Lal @ Tunuram Sahu S/o Ghuruwa Sahu; Aged about 35 years, R/o of Village- Dindouri, Police Station - Lormi, Distt.- Bilaspur (C.G.) IFCO TOKIYO General Insurance Company Ltd.; Third Floor - 345- 347 Lal Ganga Shdpping Mall, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 TO QUASH THE IMPUGNE^D^AWARD DT.05.12.200§^ Respondents Applicant Respondent Npn-Applicant ^ Aipount Awarded ^. ?<»«> i4 Amount depo^ited Court fee affused Rs.: 25,000/- Rs.: 12,500/- Rs.: 15/-^ TCT 'B^Ea^ffis sniw^itk-iw WK3iIt5ISSl v^r.j-w^^f^i^.-^.^Vfwki 'S^ "til'41cf'4, aTtl'M'ls, fitcll'M'j.i ^B.AC,.,<,,J..l4.. gn^TTRqT(^fg^q) ^Riiwcftgsn^r Shri Sudhir Verma, counse Heard on I.A. No.Ol, ap|)lication for condonation of delay in filina the appeai. 2. On due consideration, I an^ have succeeded in explainin9 application is ailowed ond the condoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4. This is owner ond drivers appeal against the award dated 05-12-2008 passed by Add|tional Motor Accident Claims Trafei^T wraf if ft%t •?f3R?R i? stigi; sii^n for the cppellants. satisfied that th®appellants the delay, therefore, the ^leiay in fiiing the appeat is Tribunal, Mungeli, Distt. Bilaspur] CIaim Case No.28/2008 whereby (md whereunder an amount of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded fpr the injuries sustained by the claimtint in the accident. 5. Brief facts of the case u the claimant was sitting in the ^utoriksha No.CG 10 T/0383 being driven by appellant No. 1, o[wned by appellant No.2. Due (for short 'the Tribunal') in •e that on 11-11-2007. when •^•^^^^{ KXCn^T • -i'S/95—11/'2008—1.00,000. ^^^ ^-^a^^'BTffT^r^TK^ ^Sf ^|^j(y)A|, y>fl|y<]<», fsK'll^y ^^c ^. jo ]'') sn^r T°w('y(i«t<il») ^ Ertl3ttrt fef?a*'^*^=fl^~-rtp?-'~i y ^rafepiN ^niRff ^f ftczt <r"itt;i< •^sffinsn^i to rosh and negligent driving of tl^e driver, appellmt No. 1, the said autoriksha turned turtle ne^.r Tilakpur turning and as a resuit of which the claimant su accident. The claimant preferijed, a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicl^s Act (for short 'the Act') claiming compensation of Rs.7j60,000/- as compensation against the owner, driver and insu 6. Learned Tribunal on a c wailableon record, passed an av the owner, driver of the yehi Insurance Company, as 1+ie insura^ice company is not liabie to pay any compensation. 7. Learned counse! for the app amount of Rs.15,000/- awarded by tained injuries in the said ter of the vehicle. |)se scrutiny, and materiai jiard of Rs.25,000/- aqainst i^ie while exonerating the bllant would submit that the the Tribunal on the heod of medicai expenses is without bein^ any basis, and therefore, award deserves to be reduced suit^ibly. 8. I have gone carefully throu^h the award of the iearned Tribunal. In para 9 of the awardj the Tribunal has held that the ciaimant sustained fracture irj right leg and also his two l^ M(^-^-«^ii?&^'.ov "?&h y-^3,^; ^-^pf )f{S"T!^^ <IiKi<TiR—rS/95—11 /200g—i ,OU,000. -X .^" s:-XIsl;[C—78 p}-. T^ "4i<iiyi, ®Ti1y<i6,r°«ni-ay .CA.A.C:....'?U01....10.I5.. »>»1|C?»' ^ an^iiT^T (ij°i(^«i<^() -s laiih veins of his leg hwe been cut,f at Bilaspur and, therefore, a( sustained period for which the on the bed, the Tribunal has including medical expenses shockingly on higher side. 9. In a motor accident c!aiib the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, compensation to be awarded by just and proper compensation in each case. It is neither a bounti 10. For the reasons mentionfed any scope for reducing the 4 Tribunal. 11. The appeat filed by compensation is tiierefore li[ dismissed. No order as to cost4 ^hich was operated in C.I.M.S. fter considering the injuries claimant remained in hospital Ipassed award of Rs.25,000/- which cannot be said to be cM<4f<?1<^1 ^ffi^t' ^f FS^I <^)^.1< 'frSifiPT 311^1 case, as per Section 168 of what is important is that 1+ie the Courts/Tribunai should be the facts ond circumstance of / nor charity. hereinaboye, I do not find ompensation awarded by the the appeilant for reducing ible to be and is hereby •K. Agrawa!;. Judge