IGH CORT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR Miscellaneous Appeal No.626 of 2_0_04 APPELLANTI: (Applicant Claimant)/ (injured) Pawan Dewangan s/o‘ Sant Ram Dewangan, Aged' about 20 years. R/d H " Vijaynagar, Sarada Para, Camp-2, Bhilai, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (CG Versus Dilip S/o Krishna Rao Maratha. aged abou . ' 37 years; R/o Near Hanuman Mandir,’ Shardapara Camp-2, Bhilai, Tahsil &’ District Durg (CG). (Driver of Minidore No.CG07/ZA 1391). ‘ Sanjay Kumar S/o Sevak Ram R/o EWS/1892, Industrial Colony, Housing Board, Bhilai, Tah. & Distt. Durg (CG) ' Owner of Minidore No.CGO7/ZA 1391) . i Formal Party DIVISIonaI Manager National insurance Co Akash Ganga Complex Supela Bhlla Insurer Minidore CGO7/ZA/1 391. ‘ RESPONDENTS/: (Non-aplicants 1 , ._ Contesting Party {Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988} Present: ' Mr. Amiyakant‘Tiwari, counsel for the appellant. None present'f‘or respondentsNo 1 & 2 ‘ No representation is made“ “ Mr Raj Awasthi Advocate appears on behalf of Mr Anand Kumar upta counsel for respondent No 3 DiVision Bench: - Hon’ble Mr T P Sharma and Hon’ble Mr R N Chandrakar, JJ ORAL ORDE (15- —201o) T P Sarma, h J' - 1 By fling appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 thew-W: appellant has challenged quantum of compensation awarded by the 8th Additional Motor ACCIdent Claims Tribunal (F T C ) Durg (for short ‘the v laims Tribunal) in Claim Case No.137/2003 Vide award dated 1O 12— 2004, whereby the Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation of H U ) t . p) l G R C ‘ J v R's.67;234l— to the appellant/claimant on account of injury caused .to‘him . in the motor accident. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant frankly admits that in the present case, the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.67,234l— to ’ the appellant relating‘to treatment and other heads, but has not awarded any'compensation for future expenses which is necessary in the present case In the Ilght of the eVIdence of Dr D Jha (AW 2) who haSI speCIficaIIy deposed m his ewdence that at the time of removmg rod inserted inSIde the bone again expenses between Rs8000/— and Rs 10000/— would be incurred along With cost of treatment but the Claims Tribunal has not awarded any such compensation to the appellant/ciaimant for future expenses 3. On the other hand, Iearned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No 3 opposes the appeal but sUbmits that‘tn the light of the evidence of Dr D Jha (AW-2) there may be necessdy for future compensation 4 We have heard learned counsel for the parties perused the award"7"" 1 impugned and record of the Claims Tribunal i5 Defnitely, the Claims Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of . Rs 67 234/— to the appellant on account of expenses incurred in treatment and other heads but has not awarded any compensation for . future treatment which is necessary at the time of removmg rod As per the ewdence of Dr. D. Jha (AW 2), at the time of removal of rod again, expenses to the tune of Rs.8,000/—‘to Rs.10,000/— would be necessary. 6 Considering the un rebutted evidence of Dr D Jha (AW 2) ‘we are of the ' View that the compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal requires ’ some enhancement. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed In addition to the amOunt of compensation already awarded .by the Claims Tribunal ‘an additional amount of Rs 10 000l- is hereby awarded to the , appellant for future treatment in terms of para 21 of the award impugned No order as to cost W ,i‘. .ssss. , Sdl— . 'T.P. Sharma , ‘ Judge Sd/~ l , RN Chandrakar Judge ‘ .. .J IWW s