4- l:iii •^y Respondents Nbn-applicants HIGHCOURTOFCHHATTISGARH:BILASPUR Singie Bench: Hon'ble Shn Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. M.A.C.No. 257 of 2008 ADpeIlant : K. Venkatnarayan aged about 28 Applicant years, S/o shri K.j Seshayya, R/o Q. N6^253-A,Z6ne-3. B.M.Y. Charoda, P.S.Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG) Versus 1. Durga Singh Rajput S/o Raju Singh Rajput, aged about 21 years, R/o Jogipur, Tahsii-Mungeli,Distt. Bilaspur [Driver crf j Bolero vehicle No.CGIO/BC/0957] 2. Gyanprakash Masih, S/o Prem Prakash Singh, aged about 52 years, R/o IViasih Cpmpo|und, Mungeli, Dsstt. Bi!aspur(CG) ! [Registered oWnen of vehicie} 3. Branch Manager, J Th^ New India lnsuranc& Co Llri. Chouk LinkR6ad,j Bilaspur. C/o DJvisipnaI Ma^ager, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Thakkar Chambers, Power House, Near Bus Stand, Bhilai. Distt. Durg <C€^:,,:'. \.;;,:|'-/. ' ••^ Appear under Section 173 of IVIotor Vehicie Act. 1988 for enhancementofcompensation: j Present: ShriB.R.Ghosh, counselfortheappellant. ORALORDER | (Passedbn 26.02.2008) 1 Heard on I.A. No.1 for condonation of del&y of 6 daysin filing thisappeal. ; (2) For the reasons mentioned in the appljcation, IA. No.1 is allowed. Delay infliingtheappeaSiscohdoned. (3) Theappellantis aggrievedbyawarddated 29.8.2007 passed In- claims case No.47/2007 whereby, the XIth Additional Motor -SDJ ^- 81888i8Si RB?iSB18MfilS;8RSiS811 ^ Accidents Claims Tribunal (FTC) (henceforth the 'MACT') has awarded compensation of Rs.51,700/- in an injury case. (4) Learned counsel for the appellant has urged that the compensation awarded by the MACT is on the lower side because the claimant had suffered permanent disability lof 17% due to the accident (5) Having considered the submission of thei iearned counsel for the appellant, I have perused the impugned award. (6) Learned counsei for the appeliant did not dispute that the ciaimant did not examine the treating doctor and the disability certificate was obtained more than one year after the accident. The MACT has considered the evidence of Dr. A.K. Yadav AW-2 that with physiotherapy, the percentage of disability could be reduced. The MACT also took into consideration that the ciairnant was attending to his work as before and there was no ioss ofiearning. It is also pertinent to note that the MACT has recorded a finding in paragraph- 13 of the impugned award that the biiis for medicines amounting to Rs.4,200/- furnished by the claimant were false. The MACT has awarded Rs.21,700/- towards expenses in treatment and Rs.30,000/- under conventional heads. (7) In this view of the matter, in the facts and circumstances of the case, thecompensation of Rs.51,700/- awarded by the M.A.C.T is just and reasonabie compensation and no ground for enhancement of compensation is made out in this appeai. (8) Accordingiy, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed at the stage ofadmission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya