-^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BtLASPUR (C.G.) M.A. (C) //65~/2009 APPELLANT : 'Claimant ^-^^ ^^ .7a''^\V^f^ ^ ?< ^ ^-""...'^v'1 ^'..^ ^••••••" ^ .MohanLal Khandelwal S/o late Rameshwar Lalji Khandelwal, aged obout 60 Yeors, Occupation : Business, R/o HIG-34, Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) .VERSUS RESPONDENTS ^I'ON-CLAIMANTS ?^^^1. Amit Kumor Shukla alias Raju, aged about 24 yeQrs, S/o Premshanker Shuklo, Owner ond Driver of Motor Cycle, R/o Radha Krishna Mandir, Jawahar Nagar, Thona MoudhapQra, Raipur/TQhsil and District Raipur (C.G.) IFFCO TOKIYO General Insurance Company Limited, Through : Branch Manager, Branch Office, Third Floor, LQlganga Shopping Mal, G.E. Road Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (CG) MiscetlQnceous Appeal under Sectiori._173_ofJ_he MotorVehicleAct, 1994 r HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT Claimant RESPONDENTS Non-applicants M.A.CNo.1165of2009 Mohan Lal Khandelwal VERSUS Amit Kumar Shukla another Raju & (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. J.) Present Shri AL Singroul, Advocate for the appellant. None for respondent No. 1 though served. Shri PallavMishra, Advocate for respondent No. 2 on behalf of Shri YS Thakur. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 04.11.2011) 1, With the consent ot the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2. This is claimants' appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the VIllth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 84/07 vide award dated 29.01.2009. 3. As against compensation of Rs. 17,00,0007- claimed by appellant/claimant by filing application before the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'MV Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 21.11.2009, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 67,2001- along with interest @ 7.5 percent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. ,;;:y:<^!" ^jc^ ^•^^^^" 8. The Tribunal, on a close scrutiny oft.he evidence led, held : the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving by driver of Discover motorcycle bearing Engine No. DASGBNG- 37770, Chassis No. MD2DSDSZZNCG-58372; appellant sustained multiple injuries in the said accident; respondent No. 2/lffco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. liable for payment of compensationto the claimant as it could not establish violation of policy conditions; assessed and awarded aforesaid amount of compensation in favour of claimant. Shri AL Singroul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit: the Tribunal has not awarded any sum to the claimant on account of loss of amenities of life and thereby has fallen in error in awarding !ow amount of compensation. On the other hand, Shri Pallav Mishra, iearned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2/IFFCO TOKIYO General Insurance Co. Ltd. would submit : looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation and does not call for any interference. 1 have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned including records of the Tribunal. Undisputedly, the appellant did not examine treating Doctor to prove the injuries sustained in the accident and resultant loss. The evidence is also not suggestive of the fact that appellant had occurred any loss of future earning capacity. The Tribunal fC^- '). •fe^—:... i "^^^" has awarded Rs. 30,200/- towards medical expenses on actual basis, Rs. 9000/- for loss of income during treatment, Rs. 5000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 2000/- for special diet, Rs. 20,000/-on account of future loss of income including other heads and Rs. 1000/- on account of conveyance, and thus awarded a total sum of Rs. 67,200/- for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. 9. When the matter is examined in the context of above broad features of the case and in the fact that the appellant has not sustained any loss of earning capacity due to above accident, in my considered opinion, there is no scope of enhancement in the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- N.K.Agrawal Judge Sahu