sii^r.^1 R-fi* wn sfK^ *tii=b ?Tffl^T ^t^f g?CTT d-OTI -<<1411«<<, OTfl+f'lfi, R|rt|y^< ^Wvt\ **11* W^ 200 CT^CT VW (.^S-y'VS) 's^nw ^ifer sn^r HWBtGXWTRT OP CT Mtsc. Appe*! No. 1267/2007 APPELIAMT DjtUip Kamde s/o Late ^anrakhaa Kamde aj^d about years, R/o vSSayK Kosmatra, 4 Ctihuiekhadan, R^jnandgaon(CG) KBSP01SDESTS DB: HON'BLE 8HM L.C. BHjMiOO & HON'BLB SHRI SUWIL tUMAR SIIIHA. JJ. Appearance: Shri H.S.Ahluwalia, co^uisel for thc appellant. ORA (18 L.C.Bhadoo, J. Heard. Tbis appeal has been under' Section 173 of the svggrieved. by the award date(|l Additional Motor Accident <ihN[<n<^i +ii<i<nf'^ fei<Q"<f^^ ^siRpran^r HATnsaARH. BILAI UR -<( st Rampur, Tehsil Distiict 'ersas praveea Rathi, R/o RsgshBee pnteiprises, Gudiwari, Raipur, pistrict Raipur Priental Insuraace Co. Ltd., |Branch Office- Kacheri Chowk, ^ladtna Manjfl, Raipur, Distnct iaipur. ORDER 01.2008) ^referred by tfae claimant/appcBaat Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 being 10th August, 2007, passed by the Cteiins Tribunal, Khair^arh, Dislriet 5iiy^ ^t^T^n^T,, -Fy/3y- aiI^r.'^T K;-) wn siroi !*4t<t> Tv^ ^ww^, wf[w\s, Rciiuy *<MCTI **<l*""""""""'"""""""""""""""""""""g^ 200 sn^r iia^ (ijcit^siijtT) wpnwgfcrsii^T 2-— Rajnandgaon (CO) in Claiai) the learaed Tribunal has a(vaided m lump sum Rs.40,( and in addition to that 9% ^iterest per annum wifh efifect fliMn 1.9.2006. Wc bave heard Shri A|hluwa]ia, counsel for the appdlaat on admission. He argued beMeved fhe cvidence addi order to estabUsh that on a< sustaiaed permaaent dteabi Ithat fhe leamed Tribiuial has not |ced by the cWmsmt/ appcflant in (coiiat of the accident, tt»claiatant ity to tfae extent of49%. he had not treated fhe cl basis of examiaation, he disabiUty. The Tn'btmal ha| treated the claunant, has] estabUsh the disabffity, exanunatiou ofthe treating Dr. R.Sadanl regarding 45^ Pickup, which the claiinant| 26.3.2006, got out ofcontrf) °ni*|[<l«(ll^IIIRJT ^f fe^ <H>i^li i;3TRn3II^F Case ]^o. 68/2006, where-under, Having heard the coit4sel»we have perased the material. In para 16 ofthe imriugned award, fhe learaed Tribunal has hdd fhat the Medical Qfficer, Dr. R.Sadaaii has stated that lant-DiBip Kaxade. Only on ttie gave a certificate regardiag 4S% furfher heM that fhe Doctor, who not been exainined ia onicr to fherefore, on account of non- 5octor, certificate Ex.P/1, tesued by disabffily, does not appear to be believable. A perusal of the rec^rd would show that fhe Maheadra •as driving on the fateful day i.e. oa 4ue to inechanical paoblem in the steermg aad inet wifh an jaccident, as a result of whlch, fhe claimant/appellant sustaiiupd iajuiy. Dr. R. Sadani, who has ?TRT^ OT? —FS/59— 8/20"~ —SO.GUU. ?Fffi^ •7TR — FS/59—8/?no- —30,G(.'U. ^ ^ "^ ^.. 1 '^% 3 'te3-E2SSSEt' 3SST '<<!<< 10<<, 81^(1*1'1(», Rlciiy^<. ^ sn^r.^i R-fi* vn aiK^i "SKW ^lltitff t<l*1dl **<|cb "B^ 200 SII^OT'qgw (xpf^si^l) ?^BRIT ^lfeT 3II^?I 3 been examincd as AW-1, claunant on 8.2.2007 i.e. aliout more than 10 moafhs after the acddent He has also state|d fhat on fhat day, he exanuaed tlie claimant and found fhat the lefit hand of fhe claimant was paralysed and the cause of^aratysis may be the iajuiy and ttiat is why, he assessed 45 % hc has stated fhat he is ni not treated fhe claiiuant-1 There is no cogent, clin^ It is stated that the dl took treatment. The best ev[ account of the accident wj was fhe person, who could) tbe Court regardiag fhe claimant as atso fhe fact to {.- on accoimt of fhe injuiy qil<l[<n4lf 'ETPI^lf Tf ft^ <R»i^t< ^ajRiiTsn^r has st^ited fhat he exaauined fhc isabUity. In fhe cross-exaxaination, 't an Orfhopedlc Specialist and has Kamde. He has further admitted fhat before issuing fhe ce^tificate Ex.P/1, he had not takea x-ray of ffae leflt haad of tl|ie claimaut because the mjury was wifh respect to the nerves ^od not to the bone. Thc Doctor has stated that the paralysis n^ay be on account of ttie iajiuy. Hc exainiaed fhe claimaat after about more thaa 10 mon&s. :hmg legpl evidence on record to establish that fhe said p^ratysis is the direct result of fhe accident. ;almaat remaincd in hospttal and he Idence availabte in this case in order to estabUsh fhat fhe clau4aat/appellant siiflFered paratysls on s fhe Doctor, who treated 'hi-m. He have possibty glven evidence before |aature of iajzuy susteiaed by the |estabUsh fhat the said paralysis was isustamed by hini ia fhe aceidcat. Therefore, the learaed Tyibunal has n^hfty hrid that fhe Wm —FS/59— 8/100- —30.Ci.'U. ?ilfe., \ •.,..\'"\ l"a*% ^. L w Sa!tssf:' 3^^ ^ww^, •s-^v'Ka, Kii/iwy, an^r.^f R-fi'k wnaTRW **<i* "sunita NIMdl *t11<h ------•-----•----•-—•• -^ 200 an^yr ii'ra; (13?f^5tr) ?Wt ;IT ^Tf?^ 3H^T —./ i . ^ cIaunant/appeBant was no 45% disability on accoiint The Tribunal has conipensation to be paid iaterest @ 9 % p.a. on fhe on 1.9.2006. The said considermg all aspects We do not find any fhe Tribuaal and there is appeal is Bable to be dismi^ Iu(ap offllie no Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo ie ^ii'lil<n<4ln 'RF^ff tf fs^ •(.f^^l-i ^aiRm sii^i able b? estabUsh tfaat he sustateed }ffhe acddcnt in question. |already awarded Rs.40,000/- as Ito the c]amiant and that too wifh ifate offiling ofthc Claun Petition ie. sum-amouut has becn awarded case. yiegalily or mfirmily ia fhe award of merit ia fhis appeal, therefore, the |sed aud it is accoirimgty dtemissed. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^liycfil^l ^T^T ^"llcWl, -FS/59—8/20m —30,Ct'U.