HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Appeilant Resoondents MiscelSaneous Appeal (Cl No.1052 of 2008 Aniket Bunkar, S/o Ramesh Kumar Bunkar, Aged 18 years, R/o Qt. No.109, Street No.29, Patwari. Badi Road, Shanti Nagar, Kohka, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. Hanuman Prasad Jaishwal, S/o Hiralal Jaishwal, R/o Camp 1 Bhilat, Present Resident - MIG 1/15/1, Jawahar Nagar, Jamul Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. Ramesh Singh, S/o Ramchandra Singh, R/o 77-J, Camp-1, Bhiiai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. Branch Manager/Divisional Manager Ifko Tokyo General Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office at 3rd floor 345-347, Lalganga Shopping Complex, GE Road, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Amiya Kant Tiwari, counsel for the appellant. ORALORDER (Passed on 08.08.2008) Heard on admission. 2. The appellant js aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2007 passed in ciaim case No.20/2006 by 10?h Additional Motor Acddents Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg (henceforth 'the Tribunal') whereby compensation of Rs.71,893/- was awarded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal awarded compensation as under: 01. For temporary disfigurement of face 02. For pain and suffering 03. For Special Diet 04. For transport expenses Rs.15.000.€X) Rs. 2.000.00 Rs. 1.000.00 Rs. 500.00 -z- 05. Expenses incurred in treatment 06. For future expenses in treatment Total RS.28.393.CX) Rs.25.000.00 : Rs.71,893.00 3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged in this appeal that the amount awarded towards future treatment and expenses incurred in treatment are on the iower side. 4. A perusal of the paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned award shows that the claimant had produced a document in which one Dr. Sunii Kalda had given a certificate to the effect that for future treatment Rs.1,00,000/-»would be incurred. However, the claimant did not examine Dr. Sunil Kalda before the Tribunal. Despite this. the Tribunai has awarded a Sum of Rs.25,000/- towards future expenses in treatment. So far as expenses incurred by the appeilant in treatment are concerned, a perusal of paragraphs 13 and 14 of the jmpugned award does not show any ground for interference. in that vjew of the matter, the compensation awarded passed by the Tribunal is just and reasonable compensation and does not call for any enhancement. 5. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge )OW