RESPONDENTS VERSUS : 1, ^•w::'^ 9<®,9^'^- »A.. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C) No.^y1) /2008 (D.B.l APPELLANT : Smt. Saroj Vaishnav, W/o Prahlad Vaishnav, aged about 38 years, R/o Ganjpara, Balod, Tahsil, District-Durg (C.G.) Sadaram, S/o Sumer Singh, Caste Satnami, aged about 40 years, R/o Near Gajmandi, Abhanpur, District-Raipur (C.G.) Balram Krishna, Tiwari, S/o S. Tiwari, aged about 36 years, R/o Abhanpur, District-Raipur (C.G.) The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Manager, Division Office, Malviya Nagar, Durg, District- Durg (C.G.) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR . VEHICLE ACT 1988 FQR ENHANCEMENT -^. :€S^"'S •-9"^' .?. -HC-22 ^A ^TT^T'^l t<'iich ^n^r sb^icb 'ylia + '3^r ^ii^Kri^, ^Til<i<i<o, [®«ni^y sn^r IR^ ...^..G0.(74.6''7'73/0^ "WI, 200 ^IWTT $b^|cb fa<b<yr< ^TT^T'^nW^f^T SB: HON. SHm JUSTICB N.Kl. AGARWAL 4-12-2009 1. 5. Shri Amaii Kesharwajri, Shri P. Datta, Advocate, CM<lf<rt<fl<l 1RTH^Tf ^ 1^rt <f^^l< i73^m3TT^T With consent of the par^ies, heard fiually, This is claimaafs conipensation in fhe ax| Advocate, for fhe appeUaat. for ftxerespondentNo. 3, appeal seeking enhaiicement of 7ord dated 19-9-2007 passed by the Additional Motor Acci(|ent Claims Tribunal, Balod, Distt. Durg m Claim Case Noj. 97/2004 whereby aad whereimder, ao. amount of Rs. l,22|,890/- has been awarded aloixg wifh iaterest at the rate of 6% per aanuin from fhe date of application till its paym^nt. 2. Facts briefly stated are ^.s under:- 3. The claixxiaiit aged abo 04 ZC/2420, as a resi ^t' 38 yeai^ raet wiffa aii accident on 14-3-2004 witihi a ttnck bearing registratioa No. CG It of which, she sustaiaed iiijziries ia the right leg. She prej^erred a claim petition under Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehi{;les Act claimmg Rs. 10,50,000/- for fhe iajiiries sustained l^y her in fhe snotor accideiit 4. Learaed Tribunal on ^ close scnitiny of the evidence led, raaterial placed and awarded a total sum subinissions made by the parties, of Rs. 1,22,890/- as compensation agaiast the respondent|s, Shri Amaii Kesharwa3|d, learaed counsel for the appellant would submit that tihe co2£ipensatioii awarded by learaed {- XI-HC-22 ^31T^T^I ^r^w^r Stl+IW ^ff^Tf ? + "s^ ^iWW^ ^nl^^Ko, fa^i^y 3^?r -^K or^ rc) ^.~?'75/o^ ^1*1011 5bHra> ^ 2( •i^sr' ^TT^T'^ITW^TT Dattfe, sustNned Tribunal is on lower permaaent disability to 6. Per contra, Shri P. respondent No. 3 woidd fhe Tribunal is just and out for its enhaaceiaent 7, I have heard leanied 8. Leamed Tribiuial even fl housewife and she did| account of injuries coxnpensatiou by takiai at Rs. 15,000/- per y^ applyiag inultipUer of| 5,000/- towards paia of special diet, Rs. expenses and Rs. 3,OOC| Rs. 2,000/- towards sumofRs. 1,22,890/-, just aad reasonable an4 ttus Court. 9, The appeal betag de^< dismissed aad is hereb^ coitasel CM^(<n<iirf T^TR^f ^ Fs^l ^^dK ^^ri^R^n^r ^ide siace the appellaiit sustaiaed 4ieexteiitof25%. hb, leanied counsel appearing for fhe |sub52iit fhat fhe aiaount awarded by reasonable and no ground is inade P^y the appeUant. for fhe parties. L|iough holdiag that fhe claimant was iiot siiffer any loss of incoiae on by her, assessed the amount of into consideration notional incoine ^ar aad calculatmg fhe amount by 16 aad by fiirther awardmg Rs. id suffermg; Rs. 3,000/- on account [8^890/- on account of treatment ~ on account of special attendaat; aad thus awarded a total ^hich in the opinion of this Court, is does not call for any iaterference by oid of substaace, is liable to be dismissed. Sd/- N.K.Agarwal Judge [Tft^ <R^^f tra^isportation