^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BBNCH CORAM: HON'BLEMR. T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE MR. R.L. JHANWAR. JJ. APPELLANT CLAIMANT M.A. (C.1 No. 1138/2010 Rikhamchand Sahu, aged about 31 years, S/o Shri Sunha Lal Saliu Residence of Tikrapara Raipur, TahsU & District Raipiir (C.Q.). RESPONDENTS Non-Applicants VBRSUS 1) 2) So.tyQnarayan Sahu S/o Shri Bisru Ram Sahu, Residence of VUlage Bhafhagaon, Tahsil Kurud, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (DRFVER & Owner of alleged vehicle C.G.05-B/7191). Ifko Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, 3rd Mala, Lala Ganga Shopping Complex G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.). (INSURER of alleged vehicle C.G. 05-B/7191). MEMO OF APPBAL UNDER SBCTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHCILE ACT 1988. Present- Shri A.L. Singraoul, Advocate for fhe appellarlt Respondents not noticed. ORAL-JUDGBMENT (Passedon 18/11/2010) The Jollowine iudsment of the Court was passed bv T.P. Sharma. J:- 1. Heard on admission. 2. By this appeal under SecUon 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 appellant has challenged the legalily and propriety ofthe award dated 26/8/2010 passed by 14tfa ff-€\ -JJ l>r Additional Motor Accident Claims Ti'ibunal (F.T.C.) Raipiir (in short the Tribunal') m claim case No. 90/2009. 3. As per award on account of motor accident on 28/2/2006 present appellant has filed claim petition for payment of compensation of Rs. 9,00,000/-. On 28/2/2006 appellant was sitting on motorcycle beartng registraUon No. C.G. 05-B-7191 driven by owner, respondent No. 1 as pillion rider, unknown Jeep was coming from front side and on account of losing cqntrol of motorcycle accident took place resulting into serious injmy to the appellant. First Information Report was lodged. He was admitted in hospital for treatment. He was surgicaUy operated and rod was inserted. Petition iinder Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation was filed on behalf of fhe appellant. After affording an opportunity of hearing leamed Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 42,655/-. 4. Shri A.L. Singraoul, Advocate for fhe appellant are heard. 5. Leamed counsel for fhe appellant vehemently argued fhat while awarding compensation Tribunal has not considered fhe income of the appellant, expenditure & 'i&^a,i ^ incmred m treatment and future loss on account of 40% disabmty ofone leg. 6. As per fmding based on evidence of Tribunal, reasons best known to the appeUant, he has not exammed the doctor who has treated him. He has examined fhe Member of Medical Board who has certified on the basis of his examination mentioning the 40% temporaiy disability for one leg. Considering fhe nature of certtficate and disability and expenses incurred, Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 42,655/- along with interest, in absence of examination of treating doctor and document of expenditure, we do not find any ground for enhancement of compensation awarded by fhe Tribunal. Consequently, appeal is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed at the stage of admission. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^-