€> HIGHCOURT OF CHHATnSOARH AT BILASPUR SB: Hoa^ble Shri Justice R. L. Jhaiiww, M.A.tCl No.404/2008 APPBLLANT Ctaimant RESPONDENT8 Sint. Sonabai W/o BhaaxMsaraxn Dahria agcd about 45 years R/6 village - Boriakala, Police Station Maaa Cainp Talisil & District Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Haineed Beg s/o Husaia Beg aged about 55 years R/o Reesai para Dhauitari PoUce Station, Tahsil, Distnct Raipur (CG) (Dnver of fhe oflfender vehicle) 2. Bhskar Dewangaa s/o Verendra Dewaagan aged about 37 years R/o Kostapara Dhamtari, PoUce Staticm- TahsU & District Raipur (CG) (Owner of the ofifender vehick) ; 3 The Oriental Insiirance Co, Liaiited Thiough Divisional Maa^er Office Behiad tihe Aadarsh Bal Mandir Maui Road Dhaintari, TahsU & District Dhamtari (CG) (Insurer of fhe offender vehicle) APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OP THB MOTOR VBHICLB8 ACT Appearance: Shri. Ravi Malieshwad, counsel for the appellaDt. None for respondents No, 1 and 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawal, counsel for rcspondent No,3. "'•••*.- .. v'-v^^;::% 6^^^ '^ R.L. Jhanwar, J. ORAL ORDBR O8'.08.2010) *°• 5. AppeUant Smt, Sonabai is seekmg enhaiicemeaart ^^^^^ coiapensatk>n awarded by the Eighth Additioiial Motor^ Accident Claims Tribimsd (FTC) Raipur (for shprt <fhe Tribunal') vide award dated 22.12.2007, passeduiClama CaseNo. 86/2007. As ^aiast fhe coinpensatk>n of Rs,4,43,000/-> claimed by the appellaat/claimaiit by filmg a clami petition iinder Section 166 of fhe Motor Vehicles Act for fhe iajuries sustafcned by her ia fhe niotor accident on 24.12.2006^ fhe Tribxiaal awarded a total siuii of Rs.34,60©/-as coxnpensatiion akmg with iaterest @ 7,5 % per aaiituiii fi-om the date of filing of fhe claim petition tiM the date of actual payinent. The Tribunal on a close scrutmy pfthe entire e^e^ before it held fhat claimaat Smt. Soaabai sustaiaed injuries in fhe motor accident on 24.12,2006; fhe accident occurrcd due to rash and negligpnt daivmg <?f(he driver of Bus, bearing registratioii No. CG 5A ©173;as the above Bus on fhe d^te ofacci^eritwas iasiajredwitli^t^ Oriental Insuraiice Company Lunited, fhe Insurmice company was liable to pay compeiisation to the clabiaaat. As fhe resppndents have iiot^ £^^ appeal ^^inst fte award, the above fiiidiag^ recorded fcy^^ Tritounal have now atfabied finality. The Tribunal considering llie iimxiber aiid iiature aCfhe injuries pioved to haye been sustaiaed by the^^ the motor accident anxl the aiiipunt pi^oved to have tosn^^^^ spent 031 the treatxaent awaxded Rs.6^083/— medical expenses; aiid after considermg 5 % disafoil^ "•^^ ^/ 8. assessed notional iacome as Rs.l5,OOQ/- aad fbereby awarded Rs. 10,500/ - towanis loss of io<X)iiie due to penaaaent disabiUty; Rs.5,QOO/- towards paui aiid suffering; Rs.2,000/- for diet; Rs.10,000/- towards deficifincy ia workmg capacity, aiid Rs. 1,000/- towards traasportatk>n expenses. The Tribuaal, thiis, awaxded a total sum ofRs.34,600/- as compensation to tihe claiQiant for the iiyuries sustamed by her m 1lie mptor aecide^ The Tribunal further directed payxaent of interest 0x1 fhe above aniount ofcoxiipensationofRs,34,600/-@S 7.5% per annum from fhe date offiliag offhe claim petition tiBl fhe date of actual payinent. Learaed counsel for fhe appellant/clamiant subxmtted fhat fhe Tribunal has erred ia awmdiag low coinpensation of Rs.34,600/-. Accoxxling to him aiotional iaconie should have been taken at Rs.36,000/- as tfae mcident took place in fhe year 2006 aiid the disabiltty^ should have beea considered at 20% instead ofS% as te taken by fhe Tribunal, tiierefore, fhe compeiisatioa should be enhanced. On the ofher hand, leanied counsel for fhe respondent No.S/Insuraoce Company supported the ^ward and contented fhat fhe coinpensatfon qf Rs.34,60Q/- lajiist aiid proper conipensation ia fhe facts aad circitmstaaices ofthe prcsent case. After perusal of record aiid fhe evidence adduced 021 behatf of the appellaat, it is clear fhat fhe iiicidexit few place on 24.12.2006 and a report Ex.P/2 was also lodged on fhe sanie day. The claimant was iimnediately taken to the hospital at Abhaapur, wliere ajfer examins^^ accordiag to Ebc. P/4, Doctor found ffaat iojurieswerc simple in x^bure aad no fi^acture was foxmd on^he person 9. 10. of fhe claimant The claimant has iiot produced aiiy docuinent that immediate after this mcident, she went to Khemka Hospital, but dociimexit Ex.P/9 shows fhat <MI 25,12.2007, she went to Khemka hospital. It meaais^ after near about 1 year, she went to Khemka Hospital for her trcatment. She has not taken any disabUily certiflcate from the Khemka hospital aad she has taken the disabiMty certificate from Dr, Bacchu, who was not tfae origmaUy examimng Doctor; he has examioied her for one- day only and fbund 20% dteabillty, fherefore/ considermg the M.L.C. rcport, learued Tribunal has rightly awaxded the compensatk>n for Rs.34,600/-. In my opiaion, fhe Tribunal has not committed aoy error of law in. awardiag fhe compensatton fbr Rs,34,600/- to the appellant/claiinaiit on account of tihie xnotor aceideEtt There is no iUegaUty or uifinuily ia fhe award passed by the Claims Tribunal, warrairtmg interference by^^^^^ Court. Consequently, the appeal beiag devoid ofinerits is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed, __ Sd/- R.L. Jbanwar Judge