\\ HIGH COURT‘GF CHHATT‘SSGARH: BILASPUR $ingie Bench: H0n’hie SM Diiip Raosaheb De5hmukh, J. MAC. No. W1 of 2008 Appeliant : Anwar Ashraf 53/0 Tufali Asharaf, maimant aged abcaut 85 years, r/o Dankbangala Ward Dham’cari, Tahsii & Disttv Dhamtari (CG) Vergus Respondents : 1‘ Vidyasagar SIG Rajnarayan Tiwari, Nem—dah‘nanj aged about 55 years, r/o Ramsagarpara, Janaki Bada Dhamtari, Distt. Dhamtari (CG) (Driver of fhe Vehicle No.CG-O4 DA- 7860) 2. Manuddin So1anki 8/0 Shri Mahd. Hasan Siddqui, aged about 3? years, r/o Nayapara Rama, Di3tt. Ram” (CG) (Owner of the Vehicle N0.CG«O4 DA- 7860) 3. TheManager, The New india msuz‘ance Company Ltd. RD. Buiiding, Near Bajrang BhQg Bhandar, GE‘ Raad Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (CG) (insurer of the Vehicie No.CG-O4 DA- 786(3) Miscenanous appem Lmwar $ection ’im of the Motor Vehicke Act Present Shri Sunii Sahu, counsei for the appellant. QRAL $RDER (Paswd on 08.022008) Heard on admission. (2) The apperlant is aggrieved by an award dared 4.1.2008 assed by the Additional Motor Accidents Tribunai, (FTC) Dhamtari {henceforth the MAC‘T) in a claims case No.202‘2007, whereby compensation 0f Rs.32,500/- has been awarded as under:— p accident euffereci a fracture in the right ca§canium which affected the working of his eght ankle joint. The District Medicai Board awarded a certificate of 30% disabirity. in the certificate, it was nor mentioned that the disabir'rry was permanent. The MAO“? considereci the age or the cieimam as 75 years and awarded compensation as mentioned rn the above paragraph (4) The sore ground urged by the reamed counsei forthe appeirant in this appeai is that the MACT, whiie awarding compensation, did net take into consideration, ihe ioss of earning capacity oi the appeiianijciaimani and the extent of permanent dieabiii‘ty. No other ground was urged. (5) i have considered ihe submission of the learned counsei for ihe appeiiant. i have aiso perused rhe impugned award. There is no maieriai on record io ehow ihai ihe ciaimant had suiiered any permaneni disabiiiiy or that ihere wae any ioss in his earning capacity. in my considered opinion, in the facts and circumstances of ‘ihe case, compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T cannot be iauiied with. (6) in ihe resuii, the appeai being devoid of any merit is dismissed at “the stage of dismissed. 8d]— Diiip Raosaheb Deshrnuki Judge a) Towards medica! expenses = Rs. 8.500]- b) Tawards permanent disability = Rs.15,000/— c) Towards pain & suffering =: Rs. 5,000/— d) Towards speciak diet = Rs, 2,000/- e) Towards future expenses = Rs. 2,000/- Town Rs32,500/~ (3) Brief facts are that the claimant a weider, had due to the