T5ST -*IWW^, •aTI\W\6, fs|<^|y^< .^...^. an^r •qsra; Cy(•!«<<») sn^r.'EiiT R-iitb WITSIK^T Stitil* TOiTWHfel 311^1 Rainsw^rup Yadav, S/o Tas^gu Yadav, Aged ab(>ut 30 years, R/o Saclla-a Tehsfl Beria, Distiictpurg(C.G.) Present | Address Near Shitla Mandir, Tatibaiif|lh Raipur, C.G. Asw4 S/o Age^ R/o| Durj Reg4 Regq 2. Chujulal, s/' o CM^^<ft'T ^i*i<Tii' "^f f^yi <rTi'(^i< ^aiRn aii^i 4ni Kuin.ar, ihatrughaa Lal Pandey, atoout 28 yeai's, Saakra Telisil Berla, District (C.G.) (DriverofTractorbeariag No. M.P. 23 G/1091 (New No.CG 04 ZQ 5412) Qiubcharid Dewaagan, years (Age not laenuonedj Sankra Tehsil Berla, Age4 R/o| Dist^ictDurg (C.G.) (OwA.er of'Tractor bearing Regd. No. M.PJ 23 G/1091 (New Regd. No. CG 04 ^Q 5412) HON'BLE SHHI:SffN!LJiUMAR SINHA, J. GRPRJ- d. Sentence Awai'ded: IX fc:]:,^" w=^=^=== 'cteiauin—i^_': . -. .^J "•- BS;B^%??S^S!BSS3!^Rt-y-"^- JrIll<*^4..UB'U,tL? ' XI-HC—78 -ySSI'S^Sf^Sf, (STlly'KS, fs|01<-i^< A^- fi- ^3- (TZ-L/^OO^- WTCW **<!* ••••••-••••••••••••••••••••••••••--•••-••••••7^ 200 an^r TR% (1?il-lat<8i) 311^1 JR R-ii* 'ciSff STT^T sft+llct) '^IIW^rf^ISII^T -z- *l'<[<'i<il-i 'WRtf •^.'fe'zt tfatSK •^aiRriTsn^r rafr. SIiri Sat}rendra Saliu, q Heard. The appeUaat beuij 24/3/2007, has prefen'ed| Eighth Additional Motor Accit ounsel for fhe appellaut. aggrieved by fhe award dated fhis appeal, whereby, the leamed ents Claims Tribuiial (FTC), Raipur , while decidiug the Claim Petijtion of tbe appellaut hereui, awarded an amoimt of Rs.98,000/-. appeUaat shall be entitled foij i.e. froia the date of applics been passed by fhe Claim.s Tr (1) Rs.50,000/- tows (2) Rs.10,000/-tows (3) Rs.10,000/-tows Rs.2000/- towarc Rs.2000/-forfhi (4) (5) (6) |It has been furfher ordered fhdt fhe iaterest@ 7.5% p.a. w.e.f. 16.6.2006 j.tion. Tliis award of Rs.98,000/- has Ibuiial under fhe foUowiag heads : (rds treatment, <ixis loss ofincoiue, i|rds pams and sufferings, |s diet, ^ attendant aiid; Rs.1000/- towarifls tratisportatioa charges. Leanied coiiasel for tt e appeUaut subinits fhat for futiu-e treatment. i.e. for renioval of been awarded. jjron rod from. his leg, no aiuount has We have pei-used the or .Cl., The appeUaat has not tnentioned anythiag in ttiis raeiuo of appeal tiiat io. fhe CIaim Peti^ion itself, he claimed fhe amoLint for removal ofiron rod, which ha^ been rejected. Theretbre, there_was d. Sentence 1 ^ XI-BC—7S aii^rw ft-ii* w sii^r sf>4i«h \ «^l4-^K- 3^T?Wn?Pf, (Sflltf'lfi, Rrtl+iy _....^..B....LD.^. aii^CT 'vsv (!j»(f-j,«<<itf) ^RTRR Tlfel Sfl^T -3-1 no speci&c pleading, cli Apai-t froai that, the appeUa4t produced aay certificate or c|< was requu'ed to be reraoved tucurred for reiaoviag it. After going fhrough sustaiaed aiid laedical treatmt ofthe considered opuiion that| is just aiid reasonable ta all delay of 25 days iii fili reasonable cause has been shil Therefore, for fhe forej opiaioii tliat fhe appellaiit ha^s enhanceinent of fhe coinpensa|1 In view of the above, ttu|s of liniitation as well as on •merjfc Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge °bllt<'l<il'i iWraf '?.1S^t <Rl't;K ^affipTsn^l the ainount for reiiioval of iron rod. has not adduced aiiv evidence or ocuinent to show fhat th.e iron rod aad how niuch expenses are to be ±ie award, fhe nattire of iitjun" ;nt received by the appeUaiit, we ai'e the amoiuit awarded by fhe Tribunal -espects. Besides fhis, there is also this appeal aad no sufBcient aad 3iwn for condonation of delay in. filhig p^iig reasons, we are of fhe considered not been able to m.ake a case for Ition am.ount. appeal is disinissed on the ground itS. r"-- Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge