??y- 6^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT Slngle Bench : Hon'bie Shri Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. M.A.fONo.1325 of 2007 Appeilant Non-aspiicant Vedram Koita.S/o Chintamani Kolta, aged about 34 years, Occupation- Mjikmaid, R/o vlllage-Durparpali, Post- Kodatarae, Tahsli & Dlstrict Ralgarh (CG) yersvs. Respondenf Cjaimant Kumari Jyoti Khadiya D/o Manbodh Khadiya, about 7-8 years, OccupatJon-Student, Through Guardian father-Manbodh Khadiya S/o Kaimaru Khadiya, about 38" 40 years, Occupation-Labour, R/o viliage Dumarpall, Post-Kodatarae, Tahsii & District Raigarh (CGO 173 of Vehlcle Act Present : Shri Santosh K. Tiwari, counsei for the appellant. ORAL (Passed on 20zn November, 2007} Heard on admission. 2." The appeiiant is aggrieved by an award 31.08.2007 passed in claims case No.32/2007 by the !Vth Addltional 'Claims Tribunai (FTC) (hereinafter referred to as the "M.A.C.T"), Ralgarh (CG) whereby compensation of Rs.50,000/- has been awarded in a case of permanent disfjgurement of face due to the accident. 3. Learned counsel for the appeliant did not dispute the recorded by the M.A.C.T. that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving by the appellant which resulted In the injuries to tne neck and of Ku. Jyoti Khadiya, 7-8 years. 4. Learned. counsel for the has the impugned award only on the ground that no medjcai evidence by the ciainiant, the fact of permanent disfigurement of the N ^r -^ d^ face ofthe girl due to the accident was not and therefore, the compensation awarded by the IVIA.C.T. Js on the higher slde. 5. Havlng considered the. submlssions by the counsei for the appeiiant, 1 have the impugned award, It is true that the respondenVciairnant dld not evidence to prove the fact of permanent disfigurement of the but the Court, the . injured Jyoti Khadiya, about^ 7-8 years, recorded that she had a scar rnark from the forehead to the throat vla lips and has further an observation this injur^ has in permanent dlsfigurement of face. Thls obser\^ation has by the MA.C.T after seelng the ciaJmant in Court and cannot be fauited with. The compensation awarded by the VA.C.T Is just and reasonabie and no ground for reductlon is made out 6.' Accordlngiy, the appea! being devoid of any merit is dismissed, at the of adrnission. 7. In view of the above, !.A. No.1 for ad-interim relief stands disposed of. Sd/- DilipRaosahebDeshnuikh Judge Priya