^p © APPELLANT OWNER IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR M.A.(C.)No...|..?:o./..../2011 Aditya Daga S/o Prem Chand Daga, aged about 25 years, R/o Gudhiyari Chowk, Near Jaganath Temple, Police Station Gudhiyari, Tahsil 85 District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of Alteged Vehicle No. C.G. 04-JA/8576) VERSUS ^ 1 U......-^^ /..^-'<T-S2.^ ^S^r""'"" '^•••-•:^J"-\V RESPONDENTS : CLAIMANTS DRIVER 1) 2) 3) Smt. Meena Sen W/o Late Manharan .Sen aged about 35 years, Chandan Sen S/o Late Manharan Sen, aged about 09 years, through legal representative Mother Smt Meena Sen W/o Late Manharan Sen, ^^^^%^ Respondent No^is minor legal representative his mother Smt Meena Sen i.e. respondentNo.l Both are Resident of Village Dhaneli, Post Girod, Police Station & Tahsil Dhrsiwa, District Raipur (C.G.) Balkishan Yadav S/ o Joku Ram Yadav, aged about 62 years, R/o Chuna Bhatti Gudhiyari, Police Station Gudhiyari, Raipur (C.G.) < (Driver of Alleged Vehicle No. C.G. 04-JA/8576 ) INSURRER 4) Future General India Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager /Incharge Officer, Future General India Insurance Company Limited, Place B.M. 23, Area, Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer of Alleged Vehicle No. C.G. 04-JA/8576 ) MEMO OF MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFMOTQR VEHICLE ACT 1988 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR '30 APPELLANT/ OWNER RESPONDENTS I.A.(C)No.1201 of 2011 Aditya Daga, s/o Prem Chand Daga Versus Smt. Meena Sen and others. '^ Mliscellaneous appeal under Section 173of the Motor V^hidesAct.1988 (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present : Mr. Suresh Tandon, counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (12.12.2011) 1. Heard on I.A. No. 1/2011 which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration, 1 am satisfied that the appellant is succeeded in explainino the cause of delay in filino the appeal and, therefore, the apDlication {I.A. No.1/2011} is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. 3. Heard on admission. 4. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded by 5th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28h August, 2011 passed in Claim Case No.76/2011, the appellant/owner has preferred instant appea! challenging the quantum of compensation awarded bythe Tribunal.. 5. As against the compensation of Rs. 11,50,000/- claimed by respondents No. 1 & 2/claimants by filing claim petition under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') for the injuries sustained by them in the motor accident on 07.05.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 15,405/- to the claimants along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual payment. EE ^-^s?s^. "'^ ^^^ ^-.: .di^ ^^ 6. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny of the evidence led, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of D.1. Mahindra bearing registration No. C.G.-04-J.A.-8576 by its driver respondent No. 3 - BalkishanYadav; respondents No. 1 and 2/claimants psustained injuries in the said accident; respondent No.4/ Future General Insurance Company not liable for payment of compensation as vehicle was plight in violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded aforementioned sum as compensation to the claimants alona with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till its actual pavment. 7. Shri Suresh Tandon, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: in absence of examination of treating doctor, amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is highly exaggerated and deserves to be suitably reduced. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and perused the material available on record. 9. True, the claimants have not examined doctor to prove the injuries sustained by them in the said accident and the resultant loss. However, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.5,405/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- for pajn and suffering to each of the claimants. Thus, the Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs.15,405/- to the claimants which in no circumstances can be said to be exaggerated or on the higher side and appears to be just and reasonable. 10. No other points have been raised. 11. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed at the motion stage. 12. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge