HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiyiSIQN BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLESHRI SUNIL KUMAR SfNHA, J. M.A.(C)No.1127of2008 CLASMANT NON-CLAIMANTS Ramlai Nishad S/o Jagturam Nishad,aged about 32 years, R/o- Village-Hathkhoj, Police Station - Rajim, Tehsil & District - Raipur (C.G.) Versus Mahadev Sahu S/o Sudduram Sahu, aged about 28 years, R/o- Gobra Navapara, Police Station - Gobra Navapara, District - Raipur (C.G.) (Driver of vehicle Jeep bearing registraton No.C.G.04/43141 Devi Kabra W/o Bajrang Lal Kabra, aged about - 30 years, R/o —Navapara,Police Statlon - Gobra Navapara, Tehsi! & District - Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of vehicle Jeep bearing reglstnat'on No. C.G.04/4314] Oriental Insurance Limited Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Ofrice No.-1, Madina Building, Kutohery Chowk, Medical College Road, Raipur, Tehsil & District - Raipur (C.G.) [ Insurer of vehide jeep bearing reglsfratjon No. C.G.04/4314] MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THI MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1S88 Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant. O R D E R ISt (1st September, 2008) IBffiKi itl^^^^' 'tUBLUjBio 9yt0( uoitBSuadaioo se -/OOO'S'sy JO )UnOLUE |B}0( B pSpJBMB '9JOJ3J84t 'IBUnqUJ. 3L|1 •J0}00p 3}eAUd e Aq psnssi SBM }i se [eunqui 341 ajcysq tueaiieio 9i|} Aq psonpcud siteoyiyso A)j|tqesip ei|) pstdeooe }QU sei| leunqyi eqi •jsjnoqei ese poot|i|8A!| sii) UJB0 Qi pssn sq IBI)} peLUieio BH'luapiooe 34^0 syep 3i|} uo sjeeA se tnoqe p968 seM peL|si|M |e|Luey -tue||sddv (s •tuspiooe jo^ouiaqt uiSiueujiBloflueiisdde 94} Aq peuieisns ssjntOBJj pue seunfuishouss 94} Q} uosyedLuoo ui MO| OQ} si leunqyj. SL)} Aq pepJBME -/OQO'8'sy 1° uoitesu9diuoo94i }B4} p9n6je AiiusiusqsA }ue||9dde eui Jo.t ]9sunoa peujea] 'eApued npusAius WS (^ •}U3LuAed |enpe p eiep 941 ||i} uoiijtsd LUIBIO sq} ^o BUIIU jo 3}Bp st|t LUOJJ %s'^. @ issjeiui i)t!M 6uo|e uojiBsuadiuoo SB -/000'9'sy jo uins |B}ole pspJBME leunqui 34} 'eoOZ'Zt'ZO uo)U9piooe JOIOLU 841 ui U!4 Aq p8UiB}sns ssunfu! 34} jo^ pv seioiyeA J0}o|/\jsyt jo 991. u°40aS J9Pun u° ft3a' LUIBP e Buiiy Aq peqaNieiujey iueLU|B|o sy} Aq psiuieio -/OOO'SQ'fr'sy ft uoitesueduioo sqitsuieBe sv fe •ZOOZ/28'ON sseoLUieio ui psssed 'QOOS' 1.0'I.S psiBp PJBMB spiA (jeunqyi sy), tjoifs joj) jndiey '(ou) |eunqui sLUieio tuspioov Jo»0!^ tBUOBippv yiyBig sql Aq pepjBMB uoiiesusdLuoo 34( p tusuieouequs jo^ leedde sjUBUJieio si siqi fe •uoissiiupe uo pjesq si }UB|!sdde 9L|i jo^ lasunoo psujes| 'BApued npuaAiqs uqs : T'3 'eidno Aaafey Aq psssed SBM ynoo 34} p jspjo •Suimoilcy SLJI 1 M The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Shri Shivendu Pandya, tearned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) This is clafmant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Eighth Additionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated21.01.2008,passed in Claim Case No.82/2007. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.4,55,000/- claimed by the claimant Ramlai Nishad by fiiing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 07.12.2003, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% from the date of filing ofthe ciaim petition till the date of actuat payment. 4) Shri Shivendu Pandya, teamed counsel forthe appellant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.8,000/-awarded by the Tribunal is too low incomparison to the serioys injuries and fractures sustained by the appetlant/claimants in the motor accident. 5) Appellant- Ramfat Nishad was aged about 32 years on the date of the accident. He claimed that he used t6 earn his liveiihood as a labourer. The Tribunal has not accepted the disability certificate produced by the daimant before the Tribunal as it was issued by a private doctor. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded a total amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation to the claimant. • —4 subbu 6) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned award, we are satisfied that the compensation of Rs.8,000/- awarded by the Tribuna! is just and proper compensation in the Tacts and circumstances of the present case. 7) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bythe Tribunal. 8) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. -^rs?^-/' \ Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge