@ HIGH COURT OF CtiHATTISGARH: BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI RAJESHWAR LAL JHANWAR. J. M.A. (C( No.293/2008 APPELLANT Claimant RESPONDENTS Smt. Neeta Miglani. Versus The Oriental Insurance Company and others. ORDER Pronouncementoforder : ^°.09.2010 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge ^^^s^^ ,,y :^:':'^^^ fl^i. •;?®^. ^3 %.. i-^..?^ .. (^ HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI R.L.JHANWAR. J. Misc. Appeal (C) NQ. 29^of 2008 APPELLANT Claimant RESPONDENTS Smt. Neeta Miglani, wife of Kamal Miglani, aged about32 years, residentof Aazad Chowk, Itwari Ward, Jagdalpur, DisttTBastar (CG) VERSUS The Oriental Insurance Company, Main Road, SadarWard, Jagdalpur (Insurer of TruckNo.C.G. 17ZC/0645) Bhuwan lal Sinha, aged about 42 years, son of Kanta Ram Sinha, through - Reekhabchand Jain, Near Sanjay Market, Front of Geeta Bhawan, Moti Talabpara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) (Driver of Truck No. C.G. 17 ZC/0645) Reekhabchand Jain, son of Jasraj Jain, aged about 29 years, resident of near Sanjay Market, In Front of Geeta Bhawan, Moti Talabpara, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) (Owner of Truck No. C.G.17ZC/0645) MISCELLANEOUS APPEALUNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT.1988 Appearance: ' Shri Prakash Tiwari, counselforthe appellant. l Shri SudhirAgrawal, counsel for respohdeTTfNb.1; None for respondents No. 2 & 3. ORDER (Passed on '>,o .09.2010) This is claimanfs appealseeking enhancement of compensation awarded by 2nd Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bastar, place Jagdalpur 1 (for short 'Claims Tribunal') in claim case No. 20/2005 vide order dated 27.11.2007. 2. As against the compensation of Rs.2,19,800/- claimed by the appellant/claimantrby, fi||ng,ja,cJ9ii;u-petition, ynder. Section 166 of the Motor :h. ' . ' f:S^^ ^ Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motcr accident on 2.5.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation along with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of claim petition till the actual payment. 3. The Tribunal on close scrutiny of the evidence led before it, held that claimant Neeta Miglani sustained injuries in the motor accident on 2.5.20Q3; the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving ofdriver of truck No.C.G.17 ZC 0645; as the above truck on the dateof accident was insured with the Oriental Insurance Company Limited - Respondent No.1, the insurance company was liable to pay compensation to the claimarit. As 'the resp6ndenl!§l'h(ave ri'dt 'filed ariy appesll agairist the award, the above findings recorded by the Claims Tribunal have now attained finality. 4. The Tribunal, considering the number and nature ofthe injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor acddent and the amount proved to have bedn spent on the treatment'accepted the pleading of the claimant and awarded Rs.9200/- towards expenses incurred during treatment and taking into nature of injuries and expenses incurred towards medicines, theTribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5,800/-. Thus, the Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs.15,000/- as compensation to the claimantr ~ The TTib'illn^rtTi;l'rthe'rl*directed paymeht of interest 6n the above amount of compensation of Rs.15,000/- with 6% per annum from thedate offiling of claim petition till actual payment. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant / claimant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation pf Rs;15,000/- only. The learned Claims Tribunal'ou'ght to have fixed her income by taking notionalincome. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for insurance company opposed the appeal and argued that the compensatipn awarded by the Tribunal,,is. Just, ^nd, prpp^ pQiipp.^n^ti.pn,, and. :therefore, need not be interferred with. 7. The appellant - Smt. Neeta Miglani was aged about 32 years on the date of accident. She was also travelling in Maruti Van No.C.G.17 i F^'l 1-^;'. 6) ,^ J- ZD/0209 on the date of incident and due to accident she also sustained injuries over her head and neck and was also admitted in Maharani Hospital and then she was referred to Khemka Hospital, Raipur. Though she pleaded that due to such accident she also sustained injuries but she did not produce any medical certificate to show that she sustained permanent disability due to injuries received in motor accident nor any doctor was examined in support of her pleading relating to injuries received in motor accident. In support of her oral evidence, the claimant did not produce any documentary evidence in that behalf. In order to prove injuries sustained by her in the motor accident, the claimant should have led documentary evidence. 1 am of the opinion that thelearned ^^o'eor •^•'?n''"•";' ''rt ^-—.--,.---:.- .^..,-..,..:-, Claims Tribunal has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and arrived at a finding that she is only entitled to receive a sumofRs. 15,0007- as compensation. 8. Consequently, the appeal filed by the claimant, being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge