^' ^( o? ^fiL ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shrs Dilit) Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. ;s j • MisceSlaneous Apoeal (C.l (PRl No.1698 of2007 Aopetlant Paras Ram Jangade, S/o Dhardan Claimant Jangade, aged about 55 years, R/o Village Gataura, P.S. Kharora, Distt. Raipur, C.G., presont address & P.0. Kurud, P.S. Dharsiva, Distt. Raipur, C.G Respondents Non-A^pSicants Present: yersys 1. Gangaram, S/o Mansingh Sahu, Through Rani Dan Gilda, Ganj Para, Bemetara, P.S. Bemetara, Distt Durg (C.G.), present address, Rani Dan Gilda & Sons, R/o Ramsagarpara, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur, C.G. 2. Rani Dan Gilda & Sons, present address, Ganj Para, Bemetara, P.S. Bomotara, Distf:. Durg (C.G,), present address, Rani DanGiIda & Sons. R/o Ramsagarpara, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur, C.G. 3. Sunil Kumar Gilda, S/o Rani Dan Gllda, Ranj. Permanent address, Ganj Para, Bemetara, P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Durg (C.G.), present address, Rani Dan Gilda & Sons, R/o Ramsagarpara, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur, C.G. 4. The Orientai Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divi^onal Manager, The Orientai Insurance Co. Ltd., Kutchhery Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) Appeal under Seetion 173 of the IVIotor Vehicles Act Shri S.C.Verma and Shri A.L.Singroul, counsel forthe appeilant. ORALORDER (Passed on this 08m day ofJuly, 2008) The matter js listed today for orders on default of not filing an application for condonation of detay <n filing this appeal. Leamed counsel for the appellant states that the default has been removed by filing the application for condonation of delay today. BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.05 10:18:23 +0530 •a- ^ (2) Heard on the application (I.A.No.1^08) for condonation of delay jn filing the appeal. For the reasons mentloned In J.A.Np.1/08, it js allowed anci de!ay in filing the appeal is condoned. (3) Heard on admission. (4) In this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the !st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ralpur (henceforth 'the tribuna!') In Cl-aim Case No.74/2005 the only point urged by learned counse! for the appellant is that the compensation of Rs.65,000/- awarded by the tribunal in an jnjury case is 6n the lower side because the tribunal dici not consider that the ciaimant had suffered partial disabillty due to the accident. (5) Having considered the submission of learned counsel for the appellant/claimant, 1 have perusedthe impugned award. The claimant is a vegetab!e vendor. The treating physician was not ©xaminedbefore the tribunal. The cllsabjlity certificate was jssued by Dr. Bachchoo after a!most two years afterthe acddent. Dr. Bachchoo admitted that he did not treat the daimant. The tribuna( steo held that the daimant was a vegetabte vendor and due to the partial djsabijity the daimant did not sufFer any ioss of earning. In paragraph 19, the tribunai has awarded compensation on various conventiona! heads. 1 am of the considerecl opinlon that the compensation awarded by th©tribunal is just and reasonable compensation and dQes not call for any enhancement. (6) The appeal being devoid bf merit is cjismissed at admissjon stage. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Gopa!