IN THE HIGH COURT O'F JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SfS MISC. APPEAL (C) No. (f^ %'?<-S. fr: /2007. APRELLANT C£AIMANT ,Kajou Ram Sahu, S/o. Shri Bhagwani Singh, aged about 65 years, R/o. Village Devballoda, P. S. Bhilai-3, District Durg, (C. G.) VE RS U S RESPONDENTS : sf' ^-''1.^ Rajeshwar, S/o. Shri Chatur Singh, aged about 27 years, R/o. Village Devballoda, Distt. Durg (C. G.) 2. Branch Manager, y The National Insurance Company Limited, District Durg, (C. G.) 3.( Ajay Agrawal, S/o. Shambhu •(. Agrawal, R/o. Shailendra Nagar, Distt. Raipur (C. G.) 4.^ Abdul Shakeel, S/o. Abdul Aziz, R/o. Devballoda, Bhilai-3, Distt. Durg (C. G.) APPEAL U/S._173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 r'^,' S'Ssi^. g f'i ^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.(C) No. 495 of 2007 APPELLANT Ciaimant RESPONDENTS Kajou Ram Sahu VERSUS Rajeshwar & others (APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT) (SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarv/al, J.) Present : Shri Jitendra Gupta, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Raj Awasthy, Advocate for respondent No. 2 ORAL ORDEI (Passed on 10.08.2011) 1. This is claimants' appeai seeking enhancement in the compensation awarded by Vltlth Additional Motor Accldent Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 313/05 vide award dated 03.07.2006. 2. As against compensation of Rs. 3,25.000/- claimed by the claimant/appellant by filing application before the Tribunai under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1 988 (for short 'the MV Act') for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident dated 16.02.02; the Tribuna! assessed and awarded total sum of Rs. 44,5817- along with interest @ 5 pereent per annum from the date of application till its actual payment. 3. The Tribunal, on a ciose scrutiny of the evidence led by the parties, material available on the record and submiss'ons ofthe parties, held : the driver of TATA Sumo bearing registration No. MP-23-LA-2502 responslble for the said accident; respondent No. 2/lnsurance Company liable for payment of compensation ^ N. to the claimant; assessed and awarded totat sum of Rs. 44,451/- as compensation in favour of claimant as against the respondent No. 2/lnsurance Company. 4. Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit : the appe!lant was a retired Teacher; was earring Rs. 10O/- per day from agriculture but the Tribunal has fatlen in error in assessing the income of the appellant as Rs. 60/- per day only and thereby committed error in awarding low amount towards future lost of earning capacity. 5. On the other hand, Shri Raj Awasthy, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 2 would submit : the appellant did not examine treating doctor; nor placed any materiai to suggest he is an agriculturist and is earning Rs. 1 OO/- per day from agriculture and has lost his earnings due to said accident. He would further submit that as per certlficate is-sued by Medical Board, his functional disability to the e)dent of 15 percent was not of the whole body and despite above fact the Tribunal has awarded compensation on ai! heads including head on future loss of earning capacity by taking into consideration per day income of theappe!!ant as Rs. 60/- which itself is on the higher side and in this view of the matter award needs no interference. 6. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the award impugned as well as records of the Tribunat. 7. Undisputedly the disability assessed by non treating doctor A.D. Urgaonkar (AW-2) as 15 percent was not of the who!e /D 8. 9. body; appellant did not file any documents showing him to be an agricuiturist earning Rs. 100/- per day and despite that the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 16,200/- on account of loss of future income by assessing the income of the appellant as Rs. 60/- per day. The Tribuna! has also awarded adequate amount towards medical expenses, pain & suffering, attendant, special diet and also for loss of earning during the period of treatment and thus has awarded adequate amount of compensation of Rs. 44, 581/- to the appellant for the injuries sustained by him in the said accident. Considering every aspects of the matter, 1 do not find any scope for enhancement of compensation . in the award impugned. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal being devoid of substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs; Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge Sahu 1