1 WV a 4 V Singia Bench‘ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHI—IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MISC APPEAL ( c ) N0. SB (If? /2006 Hemsingh (Minor) ‘S/o— Laxman Singh Aged about 13 years Caste- Dhakad Through (Natural Guardian Father-‘Laxman Singh S/o Premsingh Thakur Aged about 45 years R/or— village Parchanpal, Chowki— Baster PS-Jagdalpur, Dist- Baster (C.G) APPELLANT €1aimant Versus ‘P. Ramu S/o Acchaya Kapu (Telgu) Aged about 28 years, R/ou Shriram Colony, Salur P.S— Salur, Dist— Vijaynagaram (AP) (Driver) @PONDENTS KTirupati Rao S/o K. Moraiyya Aged about 50 years J{/o~- Samlamba Temple, Steel Salur P,S- Salur, Dist— Vijaynagaram (AP) (Owner) Divisional Manager, New India Insurance Company Ltd. ‘ Branch Office, Near Jhankar Takies Tehsil— Jagdalpur, Dist— Baster (CG) APPEAL U/S ljiiOF THE MQIOR Y’EIICLES ACT 1988 XI-HC—78 MW m W M a Ccjwo IQ?0’Z§ Wm .u m 200g WW(W> WWW . WW§WW WWW mmqi’éam k éawm —l\' g0.02.2007 Shri H,S. Ahluwalia, counsei fqr the appeHant. Heard on admission. The appeHant is aggrieved by the award dated 26/7/2006 wherein . in an injury case involving fracture of shaft of femur compensation of s. 37,000/- awarded to the claimant/injured aged about 13 years is as under:- Learned counsel for the appell nt has contended that in view of the fact that the claimant had sustained 0% permanent disability in his right leg, the compensation awarded by e learned M.A.C.T. is not just and reasonable compensation and shoul be suitably enhanced. Having heard the learned c unsel for the appellant and after perusing the claim case No. 287/200 ,the following points emerge:- 1) The Doctor treating the claimant was not examined. 2) No explanation was off red why the claimant Hem Singh did not enter the witness box. The learned ’2’ ). 1) Loss of earning Rs. 20,0001‘ 2) For pain & suffering Rs. 10,000}- 3) For expenses towards dependency Rs. 2,000/- 4) For special diet during hospitalization Rs. 2,000/- 5) For medicines purchased Rs. 3,000/- Total Rs. 37,000]- XI~HC—78 3am WW W “4.693.199 ..f"" W WW W 200g WW<W) W$¥W WWWéfWW WWW matwm / ?\ / éawm 3) Doctor V.K. Jha AW—3 who granted the disabiiity certificate did no treat the claimant after the accident and ha examined the claimant on 13.1.2006 i.e. abo t 11’2 years after the accident. in cross-examine ion this dieability has been narrated to be of moderate nature. He was not even able to tell‘ he Court whether a nail was inserted or not on t e site of fracture. 4) From the X-Ray r port Ex P- It appears that the ciaimant had suff ed fracture of the middle 1/3’ of the shaft of femur whereas the disablllty certificate merely shows that there was 40% disability in the rig tleg. 5) The claimant was ged about 13 years. His father Laxman Singh is peon. No evidence was led to show that the clai ant was not pursuing studies after the accident. 6) In cross-examinati n para 6, father of the claimant stated that he id not preserve the medical prescriptions of the claimant. ln the light of the above mentioned facts, l am of the considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the learned M.A.C.T. is just and reasonable compensation and cannot be faulted with. This M.A. being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd—/ C.C. as per rules. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Priya P.T.O. ,