XI-HC—78 ^SSf •^N|0<4, ^>Tf1^<|<o, [s|01^^< w^ ^(N7-"^-^C"""1"1"1D"""-"""""^ 200 q- 3n^?r XRW (4^f^<^) 3TT^T ^T f<rli.<=b ^SH ^^ 5h^i<=h ^^iTW^f?n 33n^r cbH(d4lT1 iTm^Tf ^f.fe^ <Pt^K "^3fRR3?TT^T APPELLANT: Claimant Om Prakash, S/o Dhaniram, aged 23 years, Caste Kurmi, R/o Vitlage - Patgawan, P.S. Pendra, Tahsil Pendra. Distt. - Bilaspur (C.G.) -Vel'sus- RESPONDENTS: Driver Owner Insurer (Miscellaneous Appeal undei| Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar SinNa. JJ. I. Ramesh Kumar Rajak, S/o Premlal Rajak, aged 37 years, Jeep Driver, Jeep No. M.P.25 A/2811, R/o Kotmarra. P.S. Pasan, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) L Khamhan Singh, S/o Top Singh Rajput, aged 37 years, Jeep Owner, Jeep No. M.P. 25A/2811, Permanent R/o VUIage - Darra, Post OfRce Khujji, Dongargaon, Distt. - Rajnandgaon, Hal Mukam - Pasan, P.S. Pasan, Tahsil - Katghora, Distt. - Korba (C.G.) ?. Jhe Manager Oriental Insurance Company Limited, In front of High Court, Biiaspur Section 173 ofthe Motor Vehide Act) 23-10-2007:- Shri Dhirendra Mishra, cot \ Oral order dictated on Da^s \ sel for the appellant. 'S^ ^INKr')^, ^iTn^^Ko, fs«?'>l^^< 37T^T^\ f<rlicb 'cT^T 3^R?T $t)^l<=t> \ ^Wv\\ tb^lck ^ 200 3TTS!??T xnra? (l^t^Q^T) '^ITW^rf^T^n^T <=bi^t<n<i1Ti ^i^<nl ^\fe^ <F»I^I< ^^fRFT^n^r L.C.BHADOO.J. Claimant Om Prakash ha^ preferred Uiis appeal under Section 173 ofthe M.V. Act, being aggrievedlby the award dated 31-7-2007 passed by the Additional Motor Accident case No.42/2006 whereby and compensation under following h^ads:- (i) Treatment and medicine (ii) Special diet (iii) Loss of Income (iv) Pain and sufFering plaims Tribunal, Pendra Road, in Claim whereunder ttie Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- Rs.2,000/- Rs.1,000/- Rs.5,000/- lnaMRs.18,000/-. Brief facts of the case a^e that on 17-7-2002 at about 8 p.m. the claimant/appellant was going o|i his bicycle to Pendra Road for selling milk. When he reached near ^e forest point, Pendra, driver of the jeep bearing No.M.P.25-A/2811, whojwas driving the jeep in rash and negl^ent manner, dashed against cycle ^S the claimant from behind, as a result of which cycle was damaged. Th^ daimant sustained mjuries on,his hand, leg, face and other parts of the l^ody. Persons standing near the site took him to the Pendra Hospital. His|fiamily members were also informed. The applicant susteined fracture bell ring treatment was given, as a incapacitated to work. He usec| ?w knee and on the chin. After applying result of which the applicant has become to earn RS.SCX)/- per day by selling milk, out of that he used to save RsJ200/- per day. After the inddent, he has 'S^S ^\WW^, ^^\W\S, (c(01'M^< 3Tf^T ?FT'RFITO TT^T 3?R^T 5h^|ch ^l^ldl ch^llcb W^ 200 3^?T XHT^ (14^^Q«y^) '^TTW^tt^ 3^1^T Reply was filed on behalf <j cbi^t<n<i1Ti ^i*i<yii ^fe^ <Pn^i< ^ ^tRpT 3?n^r become incapacitated. He spe^t about Rs.80,000/- towards treatment and he daimed in allRs.13 lakhsl >f the Insurance Company stating that the daimant used to earn about Rs.4p/- per day. It is incorrect that he used to earn Rs.200/- per day. It has furfier been stated that the claimant has not produced any certificate regardir^g incapacity. He has not produced any medical certificate for future loss| He has notproduced any document. It has further been stated that the <|lajmant sustained simple injuries and he has completely regained his h< Therefore, claim petition be rejec^ed. The claimant produced •alth. He is discharging his daily work. tiis evidence. After evaluation of the evidence jn paras 25 & 26, afte|' considering medical treatment papers, the Tribunal reached to fhe coi|iclusion that total expenses incurred in medical treatment was to the <une of Rs.801/-. Vide para-26, in all Rs.10,000/- has been awarded treatment' and Rs.2,000/- has b^en awarded under the heading 'special diet'. In para-28 the Tribunal af| treatment for 6 days. No proof [jnder the heading 'medical expenses & |er evaluating evidence produced by the claimant has held that ttie claim|ant remained in the Pendra Hospital for \>r evidence has been produced to show that as to how many days he renjiained in the Bilaspur Hospital, ttierefore, the Tribunal reached to the concl|i*sjon that he remained in the hospital for 10 days. It has further been heltl that he used to earn Rs.100/- per day, therefore, he suffered loss of R^.1,000/- on account of remaining in the hospjtal. This finding of the Trijsunal under the above headjngs i.e. for treatment & medical expense^ and loss suffered on account of :C—78 ^TI^T Jf^ f<^[ch TT^TT 'STI^T »)^licb Ban/e ~5^( ^Nl^<q, ^xO^^KS, (sl^KHy @, 'WTFTT <b^l<b ^...^..y^.....a.i^/..(?..^... -^ 200 3TRt?i xnra? (4^^<i^) '^TTW^f^T ^TT^T hospitalization & special diet is ji has awarded Rs.5,000/- towai Rs.18,000/-has been awarded ct)iAif<n<I1Ti ^i^<?il '^.f^st <Fai<^i< '^'^tRm^^^i ist and reasonabte. Further, the Tribunal ds pain and suffering, thereby in all looking to the materials produced and evidence adduced by the claimaifrt. The finding ofthe Tribunal is based on proper appreciation of the evideifrce. The compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal is just and reaso|iable. The finding of the Tribunal cannot be said to be perverse or unrea^ not find any substance in this ap()eal, same is liable to be dismissed and it is herebydjsmissed. ^ Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge onable in any manner. Therefore, we do Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge