HjGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Singie Bench: Hon'ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. MiscelianeousAppeai(C)No.82/2008 Aopeilant ClainsaRt Bhavesh Damle, aged 14 years, Minor, Throgh : Natural Guardian, father-Kalidas Damle, S/o Late Charan Das Damle, aged about 56 years, R/o Viliage Biharikala, P.S. & Tahsii Ambagarh-Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus Respondents : 1. Ajay Singh, S/o Chandrapal Singh, aged about 34 years, Resident of Shantinagar, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Mahesh Yadav, S/o Fagwaram Yadav, aged about 56 years, R/o Chaukhadiyapara, Rajnandgaon, P.S. Basantpur, Rajnandgaon, Disfrict Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch OFRce Kamthiline, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Mjscellaneou^appeai under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, Present: Shri Gautam Khetrapal with Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, counsei for the appellant/ciaimant. (Passed on 18 ofJanuary, 2008} Heard on I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay. 2. For the reasons mentioned in the application, it is allowed and the delay is condoned. 3. Heard on admission. The appellant is the 1st by an award dated 29.09.2007 Motor Accidents Ctaims Tribun; •» - -z^' Rajnandgaon (henceforth, M.A.C.T.) in ciaim case No. 67/2008 whereby in a personal injury case, compensation of Rs.2,05,400/- was awarded. 5. The injury suffered by the claimant, aged 14 years, is shortening of the right !eg. On account of grievous injury sustained in his right leg and due to operation performed in which a rod was inserted, shortening of right !eg of the ciaimant oecurred. The M.A.C.T. has awarded compensation under the foliowlng heads: 1) Expenses towards treatment, special diet and transportation 2) Towards pain and suffenng 3) Towards loss of earning 4) Expenses towards ioss of income due to permanent disabHity 5) Expenses towards uneconomicai !oss due to permanent disability 6) Loss to be occurred for treatment in future Totai Rs.70,000/- Rs.20,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Rs.50,400/- Rs.50,000/- Rs.10.000/- Rs.,2,05,400/- 6. The oniy point urged by Shri Gautam Khetrapal, iearned counsel for the appellant/claimant is that compensation of Rs.50,400/- awarded under the loss of Income is inadequate. However, 1 am unable to agree with the above argument. The claimant is aged 14 years having no income and the M.A.C.T. has, on consideration of facts and circumstances by adopting multiplier method, awarded compensatlon of Rs.50,400/- towards of loss of income, which in my considered opinion, is just and reasonabie compensation under that head. 7. !n that view of the matter, ! am of the considered opinion that compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T. does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeai being devoid of merit is dismissed atthestage ofadmission. ~—— c'-j-i-— DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^iiw^