HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BtLASPUR M.A.fClNo. 400/2007 Single Bench: Hon'bte Shri DHip Raosalieb Deshmukh. 4. AppUcant ADpellant Non-ApDlicante Resoondents Ku. Manisha Shyam Kunwar, Daughter of Parakh Das Shyam Kunvireir, aged about 19 yeare, residence ofGandhi Nagar, House No. 543, Post NehruNagar, Potice Station Supeta, Bhilai Tahsil and Distrlcl Durg. Chhattisgarh. Versus 1. Gurumukh Singh, son of Joginder Singh aged about 38 years, r^idence of sector-11. Zone-3, H.S.C.S. Colony, Q.No. 42/43 Khursjpar, BhJlai, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2. Rajkumar Prajafi, sbn *of Hansraj Prajati, residence of Q.NO. 10/Road 17, Sector-11, Zone-1, Khursipar. Bhitai, Tahsil and District Durg, Chhattisgarh (Registered owner of MinidorVehideNo. CG.07.T.10589) 3. The New India Insuranee Company, Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Thakkar Chambar, G£.Road, In fron of Auto Mobite, Power Hous® BhiteJ, Tahsil and District Duig, Chhattisgarh (Policy No. 451201/31/04/ Period 25.12.04 to 24.12.05) Insurance Company of MinidoorVehicle No. CG.07.T. 10589). Present: Shri O. P. Sahu, teamed counsel for the appellsnt. ORALORDER (Passed on 2nd April. 2007) Heard on admission. 2. Admit. 3. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 22.11 .2006 pased by 8th Addttional MotorAcctelent Claims Tribunal in ctaim case No. 319/2005 whereby in a injury, case where no permanerrt disabilify was caused, a compensation of Rs. 79,000/- was awarded. I *" rt^ 4. It is not disputed that the claimant did not sufFer any pennanent disability. The injury suffered by the claimant was fracteire in ttre tower 1/3rd of the teft foot and in right hand. The leamed M.A.C.T. awarded compensation as under:- ^tUNN^ A/ For grievous hurt B/ For doctor's fees C/ For actual mediclnes purchased D/ For pain &suffering F/ For special diet Gl For loss of earning Total a& Rs. 5.000/- Rs. 27.000/- R.s 10.000/- Rs. io,o®cy- Rs. 9,OOG8f- Rs. 1S.OOO/- Rs. 76.000/- 5. The only point uiged by the leamed counsel for the appellant is that being a young lady the applicant Is required to undergo plastic gurgery in future in which heavy expenses would be Incurred. tt was u^ied that Ihe learned M.A.C.T erred in ignoring the above fact while awardir^g compensation. No other poirrtwas urged. 6. Having heard the tearned counsel for the appeHant, t have perused the impugned award. No permanent disability was caused to the ©laimant. The compensation awarded under eonventional heads is just and reasonabte compensation. In view of the fact that the injury was caused Sn the lower 1/3rd of the teft foot and in right hand, the contention of the leamed counsel for the appellant ttmt heavy expenses would be incurred in future for plastic surgery is liable to be rejected. 7. Having thus considered the contention of the teamed counsel for the appellant and the Impugned award, I am ofthe considered opinion that the compensation awarded by the teamed M.A.C.T is just and reasonatete compensation and calte for no intereference in ttiis appeal. This MA(©). No. 400/2007 bieng devotd of merit is dismissed at the stage of admission. Pri^ Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge