CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR PPEAL NO.585 OF 2003 ?APPELLANT Municipal Corporatioh, Dhamtari, through its Chief Municipal Officer, Municipal Council, Dhamtari Versus Anup Shukla , son of Hiralal Shukla, aged about 32 years, resident of Kostapara ward, ,Dhamtari, Distt. Dharntari (C.G). ‘ 2. Niranj an Thakur, son of ‘ Jagrnohan Thakur, aged about 3O years, R/o Shiv Chowk, Dhamtari, Distt. Dhbamtari (C.G) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UIS 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 Aggearance: Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, counsel for the appellant. Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for respondent no. 1. ORAL ORDER (08.07.2009) SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Heard on admission. (1) Appellant/Municipal Corporation, Dhamtari, 'has filed this appeal against the award dated 20.11.2002 passed in Claim Case No.176/2002 by the Addl. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under: Claimant Anoop Shukla filed a claim petition u/s 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act: claiming compensation of Rs.5,25,500/— on account of personal injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, which took place on 11.07.2001 when his Bicycle was dashed by the offending Tractor HIGH COURT OF MISC. A RESPONDENT CLAIMANT Résponde nt/ Driver N M.A:‘Tf‘. N0. 585 of 2003 bearing Regn.No. M.P.62/O329. The claimant pleaded that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver. He further pleaded that he was earning Rs.60—70/- per day but on account of injuries sustained in the accident he has suffered permanent disability and has also spent huge amount on his treatment. The owner and driver of the vehicle filed their separate written statements denying the contentions of the claimant and'pleaded that the accident occurred on account of negligence of the claimant himself. They also denied such M ‘daily income of the claimant. The learned Claims ”Tribunal recorded a finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle by its driver andVthe claimant was entitled to receive compensation. So far as the quantum is concerned, the Tribunal relied on the evidence of Anoop Shukla (A.W;1) and Dr.V.K. Pandey (A.W.2). A.W.l Anoop Shukla deposed that he was earning Rs.60-70/- per day by labour work. This was not rebutted by any other evidence. Thereforeg the Tribunal recorded a finding that the claimant was earning Rs.70/— per day by labour work and calculating such earning for 26 days in a month, his monthly income was assessed as Rs.1820/—. Relying on the evidence of Dr.V.K. Pandey (A.W.2) who issued the certificate showing the disability to the extent of 20% as there were fractures of 2nd and 3rd Metatarsal shaft and the claimant was walking with limping in the left foot, the Tribunal assessed the loss of earning capacity as Rs.364/— per month and Rs.4,368/— per annum. Looking to the age of the claimant, who was shown to be 32 years at the time of accident, the Tribunal used multiplier of 10 and the loss on account of future earning capacity was assessed to Rs.43,680/—. Apart from the above, the Tribunal awarded Rsi2000/— towards pain and suffering 3 M.AI x; ,' N0. 585 0f2003 and Rs.9303/— towards medical expenses for which the documents Ex.Pv9 to P—26 were tiled. Thus the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.54,983/ — lo the claimant on account of injuries sustained by him in the motor accident which also caused permanent disability to the extent of 20%.‘ The Tribunal also aWarded interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization. (3)t Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant argued that a veg: high compensation has been awarded to the c‘laimant. (4) I have gone. through the records of the Claims Tribunal. It appears from the‘records that the claimant sustained multiple injuries including malunited fracture of second and third Metatarsal shaft with limping in the left foot. (5) In View of the above evidence on record, particularly the contents of the disability certificate EX.P.7, I do not find that the said amount awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is on the higher side. (6) Accordingly, I do not find any force in the appeal The same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itself. Sdl— (7) No order as to costs. Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge /Rao/