&f! 'HI 1^^^^' imii^B 1S8;81SISIiS^B li^ll||:|||:|-illllllll .r^'S^ii!^ li!iyiS[ill;l:?Ki;il"llil 'HfflliiBIBI jlliiliiBII ;;^-;^;:.t..' ^^•'-^ Si?S:%SJIBS^s¥'tSilSSS88BBS!UBi8SiS8Slfllltl;St^^ i|is|j|||gl|lig|gg|ggBg|jBjg|U|||^|BIKKS^ tlljll:K83MNSUHIIIfiBSSJNS'iiilMI®fil?K^ lli. ll^'!;ITi^;'-'1^^':i;!:ISiS^^&^®^i^^^lt^^'':'^:^^^^^:%^^'^?'^l;I^M^¥i^^^^N^^^B%;^ ilJIIHlll^i.i:^;l?iSS%^^S^^KKI^i^l%^^^^^;M^ x ;\~. \-° ss HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench: Hon'bl^ShrLJustice Radhe^hyam Sharma Miscellaneous Appeal (C.) No.309 of 2008 Appellant Respondents versus Sandeep KumarVerma Umrao Nagale and others Present: Shri Om Prakash Yadav, counsel for the appellant. Shri S.C.Verma, counsel for respondent No.3. None for respondents No.1 and 2. MisceJlaneous Appeal under Section 1 73 of the Motor Vehicles Act ORAL ORDER (Passed on 16th September, 2011) By the instant appeal, the claimant seeks enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded in his favour under the award dated 9-8-2007 passed by 10th Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Raipur in Claim Case No. 124/2006. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 4-6-2006, at about 2:30 P.M., the claimant/appellant was standing in front of Police Station Bh1lai-3 for crossing the road. At that time, a truck bearing registration No.MH 34 M 4962, coming from Power House, Bhilai, being driven by non-applicant No.l/respondent No.1 rashly and negligently, dashed the claimant. - The claimant sustained grievous injuries on his person in the accident. The incident was reported to Police Station Bhilai-3. On the dateand time of accident, the truck was owned by non-applicant No.2/respondent No.2 and was insured with non-applicant No.S/respondent No.3. The claimant filed a claim \ i^'ati^.^ 1:<<!<,:\ h':. !; VyS'SsS. 1 s> '<saa-B»ig j< f / ^. -^^y .\ ?• petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (henceforth 'the Act') claiming compensation ofRs.15,00,000/-. 3 . The Claims Tribunal, allowing the claim of the claimant in part, awarded a sum of Rs. 13.630/- in his favour fastening liability to satisfy the award on non-applicant No.S/respondent No.3. 4. Shri Om Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Claims Tribunal erred in awarding the compensation. It has not properly appreciated the medical evidence. It has ignored the huge expenses incurred in treatment of the claimant. Therefore, the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant/appellant deserves to be enhanced suitably. 5. Shri S.C.Verma, learned counsel for respondent No.3, suppori:ing the impugned award, submitted that the amount of compensation awarded by the Claims Tribunal is just and proper and does not warrant enhancement. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award as also the evidence available on record. 7. ' Sandeep Kumar Verma (AW-2) deposed in cross-examination that it is true that he remained under treatment in Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital for four days. It is also true that the bill for his treatment in the said hospital was for Rs.2,720/-. He further deposedthat he had submittedthe documents relating to treatment of his injury by Dr. Sushil Sharma under Ex.P-8 and 9. It is true that besides this, he did not remain under treatment anywhere. It is true ..iy" that he did not remain under treatment of Dr. G.S.Bachchu. It is true that he did not call any person working in Balaji Trading for deposition today. 8. The Claims Tribunal has observed in para 13 ofthe impugned award that it was stated by the claimant/appellant that he was admitted in Chandulal Chandrakar Hospital, Bhilai for treatment of his injuries sustained in the accident for four days. 9. From the material available on record, it appears that the claimant/appellant was admitted in hospital for treatment of his injuries sustained in the accident from 4-6-2006 to 7-6-2006. The Claims Tribunal has awarded compensation to the claimant/appellant under different heads. A sum of Rs.1,000/- has been awarded as traveling expenses for going to hospital for treatment, a sum of Rs.2,000/- for food and a sum of Rs.3,000/- has also been awarded to him for his mental and physical pain sustained by him due to the injuries received in the accident. In total, the claimant/appellant has been awarded compensation of Rs.13,630/-. In view of the medical evidence led by the claimant/appellant and the expenses incurred by him in his treatment, the compensation awarded to him by the Claims Tribunal appears to be just and proper and it does not warrant enhancement. 10. In the result, the award under appeal, being flawless, is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. ^. Gopal Sd/- R-S.Sharma Judge \;