•C—78 sn^twfew Wtt SiII^T St»*1 3wT '^l.'lld'i), »TT|«'IS,Rfrtl^y ^ ^ WI. 200 an^?r'qa% (ijcir-i«<<w) •^RIIWdfel 311^1 APPSLLAST/ Non-auoUcant No.3 SESPi APPUCAHT N0.1) 3 APPLiCAHT ! N0.2.1 "• Shri Dashrath Gu^ Shri Ashok Soni, Shri Ratiadra Misht" D.B.; HON'BLE SHRI L '<ftM[<rl<ft:T fWf^t 'it^^ <Ioit$R ^ oita*i <HI^?I (Cj Ho.1018^ 'he New ladia Assuraace Coiapaay .muted Tbrougli: Its Braach Manager, iraach-Office, Rajeadra Nagar Chowk, 'ah. & Distt, - Bilaspur (C.u,) Versus Akhilesh Agrawal, S/o Basaut Agrawal, Aged 28 years, r/o Near 6ylaiiau chowk, Beluad Gujrati Bhawaa,J^inal Chowk Laaes,Shivaii Mai^, Bilaspur(C.G.} aaiaarayan Bajpayee,S/o ^cwasbaiikar, Agcd 38 years, r/o Botiaffrtui\ P.S- Slialidol (M.P^ •Di'iverL fA/s Prayag Travels Bus Service p'lu'ough ; Diicctor, 12/565 pevelopmeTit Area, Shahdol, District phahdol [U.P.) (0-w-aer) A"t, 1SSS tsL, Couiisel for the appeUant. Ct>unsel for resuondent No. 1. >h^a, CGunscl fcr ix;spondcnts No.2 & HOySE.E SHRLSU^SL KUMAR SiNHA, JJ. 3II^I?il(<>li<n W SIltW it>*< 3:5? '^l'illd'M, »T(1y'l<o, Rl<?»iy^< •WI. 200 sn^r-iraq; ('pf^w) ^(IIWHftS 3)1^1 L.C. Bhadoo, J. Hearri. The New India A^ appeal iinder Section 17.'{ aggrieved by ttie awai-d Additionai Motor Accidteil C1aim Case No.85./20071 allowmg the petitioner's Rs.4,59,280/- in ai1 iinrt^ 7°/ap.s. fromi the date of] the cost of daini of Rs.' Responde.nt No. 1 /. Tribnnal to the effect S.N.Mishra was going on to Aroarkantak in connw was drivine the motorci bearino No. M.P.-18-730I1 being driven in a ras1i No.2 liRrRin and dashed a as a result ofwbicli, hc bone and hip joint were was also fi'actiii-ed. The Hospital, Rilaspiir, from '•cr"r'' •-•—••f-' Nnrsin'g Honie of Dr. S. . 200 / thbt *i<il<'i<h'i wraf 4.ft^ <fa<si< ^3ifiii[3ii^r GS.G1.200S, Isiirance Coinpanv tias ppRferred this ofthe Motor Ve1iic1es Act, 1988, being latcd 16/4/2007 passert by the Third it Claims Trihiinal, Bilaspiir (C.G.) in w1iene1iy, tTie learr.er! Tribiinal after "•iaim passed an aiwaiTi to the tune of [r various Tieads, atoiigwitb interest @ filing ofthe claim petition along with - and Advocate's fee ofRs.1000/-. liaimant filed a daim case before flic on 26/6/2005, Tie a1ong witll one |a motorcycte licaring No.C.G. 10-5543 j'tion with his liiisincss. Thc clainiant ^cle. From the opposite side, a Tius came. m a bigh spe.crl, wl-iicTi was ^ind nRgtigent manner by respondent jgainst the motorcycte of the claiTOant, jiiisfan-icfl grievoiis injnries. His peivif ftlactiired. The nelvic hone ofthe left lee lclaimant was ariTnitted in the CIMS whcre, he was sllifted to a Private Pheer, whei-e Tic took treatrnent from aii^i w Is.iitj) ^S(T sn^r %w^ L g^Etf •^Wv'i^, ^v\6, Rlrtl'Hy Wi; 200 an^r'ww Ci^ldsyiT) "^nW^Tf?? 3D^T J *l*ll<'I^T1 'Wraf ^fe1^ ^I^K ^arRiHsn^T eatn 1T)OT 29/06/3005 to T2/7/'ji clajmant siiffered nain aii treati'nent and on niedidinRS pelvic bone 1-ias beconie) 1akhs is neeried. Thel disabled. He iised to refined chuna in riifferRTtt Rs.5000-7000/- per siistaiiied liy the dain^ therefore, 'he is eTititl) Rs.14,22,000/-. The clal respondents No.2 & 3 daiBFiant addiiced tlie d ciaim pRtition. Howeverl respondents. The leamed Tribui paities passed tiie above We have heari coi recorrl. I^eamed coiinsel f4 aroount ofRs.50.580./- expenses, Rs.7700/ - iui Rs,10,00n/- iinder the h|; fte 1'iead of exnenditiiil awaTded agamst medical liead cif nain ancl siiflerinlps [?005. HR was opp.i-atRd upon. The id Tie iTiciii-n'd medical expenses for his (jjnes. As a re.snlt of the accident, his rlefective, for treatmRnt of fcat Rs.2 daunant bas becoirie peniianently money by seilmg pan masala and areas and flierehy; he iised to eani nth. On account nf the iniiiries |arit, his income has Tieen affected, fcd for the daini to the taine of |m was resisted Tiy the appellant and ItP.rfin. The issiies wen: fi-ained. The 'idence on affidavit in support of the no evidcnce was addilcefl bv the ^ial after hearing thc counsd for the ^awarrl UTirlervarioiis heads. jinsel for the parties and penised the i-r fhf appe11ant has not dispiited the awarrlRfl iinder flie head of hosnital ricr the liearl of ti-avRlling expenses, 'ari pf special diet, Rs.10,000/- nndcr e nn attendant and Rs.10,634/- hffls. He siibmitted that iinder the i_Rs.5n-000/- has hep.n awarrip.d, flic n-H 3TI^1 ?H Ri'IWi wiTsn^CTwnw s'sq'arpn^q', g^ftwi^, fSi0i«y r. •V^ 200 an^nraw (ly^iy) TOlIWdtelsiI^I ^ *wfci4-f iwraf 'Sfsv\ <!m^H ^aifiw an^i sanie is on higber side. of medicines and flitlj awarded. This ainount 1j; neitlier the Doctor has fl have been subniitted to to take treatroent in futul subroittef! that withoiitl reached to ttae conditsl Rs.4000,/- p.m. He furth| has awarrler! Rs. 15,000] treatnient, whereas liills been siibmitted. On the other handl argiied that the by settin sent back, allowing the respect of income as well expenses for treatinent. The leamed Tnbiin parties has decided the fiill opportiinity to adrtiici claim, therefore, now thi the claimant further oppo As far as amounf of medicines and future relatirig to fhe sanie bas fe also suhniittefl that iinder the head re treatment, Rs.1 lateh has been as been awarded witTioilt any basis, as een Rxamjned nnr ttie medical papers •stahtish that thc claimant is reqiih-Rd r, forwhicb, Rs.l Lakh is required. HR any valid hasis, ttie Tribunal Tias ion that the cteimant nsed to eam °r sTibniittRrI thaf flieleamed Triblinal - iinder the bead of TnfdiciiiRS anr! >fact]ia1 expenses of Rs. 10,634/- has Sbri Soiu supportfd the award and ^ aside the awarrl, the inatter may lie clahTiant to addiice thc evidencR in as percentagR of riisaliiUty and fiiture |a1 aftcr giving fnll oppoi'hinify to tbe jiaim petition. Tbe claimant was give.n thc eviflence in orrler to esteblish his 1 case. cannot toe remanded for giving ftiinity to estabtisb his claiin. itf Rs. 1 T.akh awaried under the head ti-eatmcnt is concemied, no papers bfRn fiimished by the clahnant nor XI-H' s^? -^w\^, ^rnyiti, Rioi'My "^ 200 ail^r ?RI R;^di OTTsiiSCTwm; an^nra^ (1pfgW) •saiwcaffeffsii^t *iili't<i1-f 'wraf iihv\ <["it»i< ^affRw^n^T any Doctor has been exa<nined hv hiiii in onler to establish tliat the claimant is require^ operation, for which, an] tegal evidence has been a| i-ecord to establish the se to undergo fiirtber tj'e.atTlient and amount of Rs. 1 I,aMi is necrted. No -3fliiCRd or material has been placed on lid claini bv the claimant. This findins is withoiut aiiy hasis, fhe same cannot Tie sustained and desen/es to bc quashe(l. tjlnrler the head ofpain and siifferings, Rs.50,000/- has been aw|^rrlRrl by tbe leamed Tribunal. Under fliis head, niaxiiTLiim Rs. Taking hTiniai'litarian groi 0,000/ - ought to havc been awai-ded. nd on consideration that the clannant inay be nequired to und|"rgo sorae treatment, for which; the claiinant has filed an app^ication for taldng docninent on n:co)'d and aboiit Rs. 20.000/ - h^s been spcnt on treataient after ffling of this daim petition, 1| opinion that taking into awaifled iinder the hearl hF.i'efore, we are of the considered consideration the fiiture cxpenscs to be inciirred on his tr<tatiTient, we maintain Rs.50,000./- of pain ancf siiffp.rings. As far as percentage ofdisahility sijffei-Rd by tbe claimant on accoiint of the accident is concemRri,| nd Doctor has heen p.xainineri by the clamiant in orrXr to establish thc pcrcentage of disahilitv. In the °" ~ ^ --—••-•' clann petition, he has TOlentioned that he bas suffen'd 50% disabilily; bzit in para 14 reached to the concliision and parts of the body affe^ of fhe awarrt, leamed Tribuaal has that looking to the nahire of injliries •terl by tfte injiiTy, the claimant miist have suffercd '25% disabil^iy, i^ooking to the natlirs of injune.s, we roairi.tain the said findiitg ofthe TribiiTiaI. 'aiojaii.iqj, 'ysssv^ aq^ ^u g |. e^etl v^ aq+ jsd se ^UBuaeio aq^ Aq pa^fiuiqiji ^o 31114 aq^ o^ a^i^ipuadxa j.o Styq ay|) SB4 -/O00'yi'sy '+uatu^3.4 pue sauj; 'uoi^ippB ui •^ueuiiBp atp Aq paiyyiis ai[4 u.yi.y. a.ioiu -/Ouoi7!a"sy pap-iitaw ^ •praq siq^ ^aputi -/OUO'91'e'sa paiu) '-/O00'£9rl'sy °+ 'a'au.ioa aiuoym ^o. s4 p9l[d'ile si y i jo .tyiiilpitiin aqi ^i 'sttqJ uaaq 8Dli J3i[di4iltiu ^'JJLIOJ aqj, •'ueaA^ aq^ o^ Sui^oo[ iBUttquj^ auy Aq pai[due ai^ pue -/0006'Ky °+ saiuoo SKO[ AI.IJ si ^unotUB ^eiy ji pue q^uoui .1311 -/' sei.1 aq 'Att[iqesip %cgjo ^utioooB uo '4 3[qeuosie9^ ptiB .tsiif aq o^ sueaddB ^{ ^ -/OOOE'sy se +UBIUIB13 aq^ j:o auioaui si ^i ^eq^ uoiuicio pa.iapisuoo siy j.< 3iy jo ^l[e^o^ aip Suuapiyuoa 'dLiojaj lou seq aq ^nq 'siua^t asaq^ j^u a[es siutio3.je '.la^siS.iJ auioy SuiuiB^uieu.i ui sai^p puB saBeiiiA siioueA ui 3W\ BUiiqo pauy.u pue e[BSt?iu uea ^o 3[es| pa^B4S ss 'asnuayi.i 'aiuoyui av^ Sui^uBx ^UBiate[3 aq^ ^iABpty.t; siq ^tia3xa ^eii SuiiUtK) aq f.f.flivu. ^UBUiiep 3Lp ^e^ seq leunquj^ aly 'pa'.uaauoa si aiuooi te^lte hP).IP ^ tlittojl \>'9f^ S-hlh l-|bl->]bllto leanquj, aty ^o ISuipuy !S U33q 3A13LI -/freQ'Ol'8^ ESB3J3l[A 'papLlBMB U33tt aipaiu y peaq at^ japuu lauiooui ^o ssoi yiqeuose.M ;4 teaiiquj, aq+ 'Aqgjaiij. iMB seq [Bunquj, aqi inq |o[ [B^O^ 3LO '-/'0006'sy o^ 'ieutiquj, 3l[i Aq psitddB yg se ^UBuiiep yLyjoaSE ttaaq seq gi to jai[dptiim byA aq^ 'gl Aq pai[c{i^i[tm l>S2,'sy y sso[ e pa^ayus l.qaiiaq.). pue s.toyusai ye ui iep .iad-/o0l"sa 'a't 'iu-d ^lp ssysse o^ aieudo^ddB .MB aM 'sayuB^smiia.tio ^3l{^ '3UIBS 31^ paMlpO^d \{JUB 3seq3.ititT SuijjaeSai |il ^snui a]-i •qjegsr^ei;iii3 fss aiy ips 04: p3sn pUB ui Suiiesp SBA aq 'aAoqe lai j^oo.ld AUB paiy +ou seq lt -K-t ttiq '•u.ru-/o00fr'sa loisnpuoa aiy ^e paALue tt jo sso[ se .iej. sy 3> ji^ue fiijtt Uiliaa ) Iblsh 1^1» ttelkitS tfcbl^ IhtD tfaii.'y ~ teyic 09Z ^tt. >Kftl(^|s[ 'Bllft^t®'bWh-lh^ lao-P 3H-K s ^" .<'/ "'teE?^^ kt.^'vy ^s^ss^^'"" an^TSiT'feiN' WIT3IR?IW*tW -<L " (f Tsq' '*imvw, ^xD^'Ko, isi^iuy Timpn' 'sCTra? WI. 200 sn^yr ^aw ( T^aiw ^ifer SII^T 7t under ttiis liead, the T] than the actaai expense^ Thiis, under the 'h.t RXpenditiire mciirref! rj Rs.1,58,366/- has beoi clainiant was not entitlerl In the resiilt, -^.hel siicceeds. i The coinpensation awaried by the leamert by deflncting Rs. 1,58,3< such; the claimant is ent The conditioii iini disbiu~senient ofcompen; that an amoiint of Rs. 1 term deposit^ n*maining shall be same. 4>T''iicpi^*< 'wr^f ^ i^z^ <rait$K, i? sifm aii^r iliunal lias awaiTied Rs.4366/- morc inRnn-eri hv' hiro, •ari of loss of incomc, fiitiii-e treatment, n merlicmes and ti'eatment, in aQ awarrted in excess, for wTiicll, the appeal fi1ed T>y the appeUant partty arnount to the tiine of Rs.4,59,280/- Tribiinal is rcduced to Rs.3,00,Q14/- i6/- to the extent indicated above.As itted for Rs.3,00,914/- . losed bv the Trihiinal in resnect nf iation amount is modified to the extent 1ak1i s1ia11 be deposited in fiye yeai-s bonrlition for wjthrirawal ofthc amoiint Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge Sd/- Sunil Kumar Siaha Judge