"•»-£; MA.[Q ^^/aotft ff>^ S! pp^4Apr/ tON-. ^SJQWT W.ls [ DHANNU SMG THAKURS/Q: LATE. SHKI. JJUGRAM SING, AGE:52, R/0: SECTOR-4, ]^TjREET N0: 4, Qtt. N0. 12.H, BHILAI, PS. [ BHATH, DISTKICr: I5URG(C.G.) BtOTtafvdrfdc ao. CG/OT/ZD/SaS? AaopiMjerayGuyr !SQ2 ABIOSHEK KUMAR V^MA S/0: SHRI. AiGPBASAD, AGE: 28, R/Q:;PLOTNP. 2A, HNK LANE, MAITM KI%g, RISAU, BHILAI,DISTRICT: DURG^C.G.) RAJESH KUMAR SING., S/0: SHRI. DASHSA'TH SING THAKKR, 1870: Qtt N0: 16/D,STREETN0.10,SEGrOR-4,BHILAI, DISTRICT:DUKG(C.G^ OWNERrflndddcau.C»/W/2a>/9a? c?" l^- '^-6-A^'W^f WAR0YAI.l3HaAT Rs. HIGHCOtJRTOFCHHATnSGARHATBILASPUR APPELLANT (Non-appUcantl MAfONo. 1028of2010 Dhannu Singh Thakur VERSUS : Abhishek Kumar Venna & another APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT RESPONDENTS (^BUeatrts) JSM SB: Hon'ble Shri Jusfice N. K. Aaarwal ftwsCTit : Shri Amiykaot Tiwari, Advoeate for the appsHant. Shri Pawaa Sbrivasteva, Advocate for respondent No. 1 . ORALORDER (Pas»don17.02.2011) 1. 'Withtheconsentoftiieparties.tiiematterisheardfinaUy. 2. Heardon IA No. 1, application for condonation ofdelayin filmg the appeal. 3. On due consideration, I am satisfied that the counsel for appellants is succeeded in explaining the dday caused ia filing tiu's appeal. Accordingly IA No. 1 is allowed and delay caused in filiag tiie appeal is hereby condoned. Also heard on admission. 4. The instant appeal has been preferred l^ tiie appellantflDriver against Ihe award dated 20.04.2010, passed by the VHtll Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribuaal (FTC) Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') jn claim case No. 59/08, wfaereby and whereunder an amouat of Rs. 88,020/- has been scwatded as compensation in favour of the claimant ai^ as against the - appeUaatasweU as resporidentNo. 2- 1?. » ^ 2 5. Brieffacts ofthe case accordiag to fte appeltant are tlia^ oa 22.112007, theclaimanl/respondentNo.lwasdaAedby the Driver of Commander (Jeep) bearmg re^istr^ion No. CG-07- ZD-9267, owned by raspondeat No. 2 and beiag driven by the appeBant rashly and negligaitly. Due to said acciden^ Ihe respondent No. 1 sustained serious multi^e iajiiries. He also sustaiaed fi-acture ia his right leg. A criminal eas®under Sectioas 279,337 and 338was registered againstAe appeHant. 6. As a^inst Rs. 12,83,000/- elaimed by the claimanl, the Tribuaal, awanled totel sam ofRs. 88,020/- as compensation in fevow ofthe claimaat. 7. Shri Amiykant Tiwari, leamed counsel appeanng for the appellantwould sutnnit that tfae amount awarded by the Tribunal is shoekmgly on higher side whieh deserves to be smtably reduced. He would fiirther submit that Ae r%ipondent No. 1/claimaat has utterly feiled to eomiect tiie nguries with tiie aceident. • 8. On the otiier hand, Sfari Pawmi Shrivastava, l^ined counset appearing for respondent No. I wreuld subniit tiwt the Tribunal hics awaided tire above amount which is based on evidence of Doctor as vwll as the medical treatment papers and bflls produced by the claifflaatand there is no scope of interfeFence in the amount ofeompaisation awarded bytfae TribunA 9. I have heard the counselappeariag for the parties and perused the orderimpugned. ' ^ 10. AsperevidenceofDoetor,therespondentNo. Iwasadmittedin Hospital as indoor patient for a period of 23 days. He had incurred Rs. 25,420/- as medical e^qpeases, his sslary was Rs. 27,500/- and his eaming from busiaess was Rs. 22,500/- at the time of accident. The tribunal has awaided Rs. 25,420/- on account ofmedical e^qwnses, Rs. 5000/- on account ofpaia and sufiTerance, Rs. I- on account of special diet, Rs. 4600/- for attendant eiqwnses and Rs. 50,000/- on account of loss of eammg, and thus awarded totel sam of Rs. 88,020/- as eompeasation in fevour ofclaimanl/respondeBtNo. I. 11. Once a persoa has sustained fracture in tiie right leg, it may take 3-4 months to recover, and tiierefore, lookingfiom any aagle, tiieamount ofcompensation caanot be said to be on Mgherside. There is BO force ia the contentlon raiscd by Shri Tiwari that there is ao nexus between theaGcident aad fhe iajuries sustained. 12. No other grouads have been raised by the appellmt. 13. In view ofabove, there is no scope of iHtorferenee m l&e amount < ofcompensation awarded by ffie Tribunal. 14. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the appeal has no merit. The same deserves to be and is hereby disnussed.No order asto costs. i Sd/- N.K.AgarwaI Judge Sahu