HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M. A. N0. 377 of2006 APPBLLANT Bisahu Ram Maaikpuri Vs RBSPONDBNTS Paachuram Gaada ^ " ' <k\'. Judgment post for o|-^:2007 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M. A. N0. 377 of 2006 ^ APPBLLANT Non-applicaat Vs RESPQNDENTS AppUcant Bisahu Raia Manikpuri, aged 45 years, S/o. Shri Niraajaa Das Maaikpuri, R/o, Potarpara, Bagbatiara, occupatiou- einployee of Chhatfisgarh Electdcity Board (Owner aad Driver of tiie vehicle). Panchiirani Ganda, aged 45 years, S/o, Late Shri Baratiya Gaada, R/o. vUlage- Navagaon, Ward No. 10, Bagbahara, TahsU aad District Mahasamund (C.G.) Shri Vaibhav Govardhaa, Counsel for the appellant. None appears for fhe respondents, though served. JUDGMENT Per Dhirendra Mishra, J This appeal under Section 173 of ttie Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed agaiast the award 6-1-2006 passed by 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Maliasamund in Clami Case No. 19/2004 whereby aa awaid of Rs. 70,687/- has been passed against ttie appellant ia favour of fhe respondent for injun7 sustained by him m a road accident dated 16-7-2004. The Tribunal after recording fhe finding tiiat fhe appellaiit did not have vaUd llcence on the date of accident aad he caused the above accident while driviag Suzuki mLOtorcycle rashly aad negUgently in. which the respondent sustamed grievous iajuries, assessed the conipensation atRs. 70,687/-. The only ground raised by leamed coiinsel for the appeUaat is that fhere is no evidence available on record fhat fh.e appeUaat sustamed permaaent disability, even then fhe aaiount of coinpensation has been assessed on fhe basis of 10% disabUity which is contrarv to fhe niaterial avadlable 011 record, Even the iaconie ofttie appellaat has been assessed at Rs, 3,000/- per raonfh which is excessive. The appeUaat had hiniself paid fhe expenses ^ towards treataient of tlie respondent aad the respondent had lodged report after niore fhan a inonfh just out of greed ofnioney. I have heard learaed coinisel for th.e appeUant, I have perused tiie record as also fhe iaipugned award. It is not iii dispute that ttie appeUaiit was Haaial aiid nature ofwork requires couiplete physical fitoaess. The appellant has filed ttie treatinent papers including X-ray pnnts of his right leg. From the report of Ex. P-21, it is found that fracture of xnid shaft fibula and tibia with iiitraineduUarvr nall were seen ia flie X-ray report. The appeUaat himself has stated iii his deposition fhat iaitiaUy he was taken to Goveminent Hospital, Bagbahara from. where doctor referred him for proper treatmeut to Khemka Hospital, Raipur where he was admitted ia Intensive Carc Unit. He undenvent treatment j&om 16-7-2004 to 16-8-2004 ia Khemka Hospital, Raipur. He had spent arouud Rs. 50,000/- ia tlie treatoaient, Rs. 5,000/- towards iacidental expenses aad Rs. 15,000/~ towards special diet. By the work of Hainal, he used to eani Rs. 100-150/- per day aad because of rod fixed ia his leg, now he is not ia a position to do the work of Hainal nor he is able to do aay work which requires labour aad he waUks wifh fhe help of crutches. He has also proved tiie disability certificate of Ex. P-19 issued by Dr. G,S. Bachu, Orthopaedic Surgeon, Raipur who has assessed 23% mUd permaiient disability of right lower limb. In the cross-exammation, fhe fact fhat respondent is not able to do fhe hard labour work as also fhe job of Hamal has not been chaUenged. Takmg iato consideration the overall evidence avallable on record, nature of job ia which the respondent was engaged beforc fhe accident, Certificate ofEx. P-19 and duration of hospitalization and iinchaUenged testimony ofthe claimaat regardmg his disabiLily, fhis Court is of the considered opinion fhat the amount of compensation awaided to the respondent/claimaiit is not excessive. The appeal bemg devoid of substaace, deserves to be disinissed aad is accordiagly disinissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ?/-