/^s IN THE HIGH COURT O^ JUDICATURE:CHHATTISGARH :BIIASPUR M.A. (C)NQ : ^^^—GE'20QS^ APPELLANT 2^PPLICANT Vijay Goswami ^ aged 20 yrs s/o Shri Sadhu Goswami Gram-Padepur : Tah-Seepat Distt-Bilaspur CG VERSUS - BESPONDENTS NON-APPLICANTS ^{£^' ^ ^ ^^ .-A^" Karim Ansari aged 45 yrs s/o Shri Surmalli r/o : Gram-Chhurakachhar Tah-Katghora, Distt-Bilaspur CG Rajesh Kumar Ch.oudhary aged 30 yrs, s/o Shri Ramnageena Choudha^, r/o : Q.no : 8/88 Balgi Colony : Tah-Katghora Distt- Bilaspur CG 3. The National Insurance Company Ltd. Through : The Branch Manager, The National Insurance Company Ltd :Branch-Bilaspur Vyapar Vihar Road : Bilaspur CG APPEAL FOR ENHANCEMENT OF AWABD TJNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988 "S^ '^^^^f.W^WTS, ^^W^< wwir'a.afra;--'-MJ-&:':fc-:--wi,200^ ^n^r ^S^K (^(<l€<<^) OT^T'^?^FThF w^ ^ni^iiCTN? • •-WW-W-•fl--f-"^:.-Ws'^W.sssn-. ^<!TW^f^ S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Abarwal 30.06.2009 Shri Anurag Dayal Shrivast^va, Advocate for the appellant. Heard on admission. The instant appeal has been the award dated 28.03.2008, pa|s Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilasp^r (for short 'Tribunal'), in Claim Case No. 144/07, whereby the Tribjunal, on appreciatiori ofevidence, awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/- 8|longwith 12 percent interest per annum from the date of applicatio: appellant. Tribunal is inadequate inasmuch sh{^i<r{<flff{ 'WI^Jf ^f f^Zl' ^P^R '^3?fW3:?T^T directed by the appellants against ssed by VIth Additional Motor {i till its payment in favour of the Shri Shrivastava submits t|iat the amount awarded by the ias the claimant suffered serious injury and has spent heavy amountlon his treatment. I have heard the counsel 4ppearing for the appellant, and pemsed the records. The Tribunal jhas assessed amount of quantum in para 11 ofthe award after dealinjg with each and every documents produced by the appellant and look ng to the all aspects ofthe matter ^^^^ ^^P? ^^^TU^RT^jT^—?:S/95—11/2008—1.00,000. r "r ^' "°% ^^ \'f "TSEf^lMid^, ^Tl1<H4l<o, r®«rtl'Hy :N(Ndl'^'Wc|?' ••^200 W^l^T^TW ^IT 3?T^TiF"RT^ 3^7^^ (^t^^T) I"^T?W ^ft^ 3?n^i and awarded lump sum amoul appellant. It is also not in di regarding disability and X-Ray re^ort were filed by the appellant nor any Doctor was examined to pro| appreciation of evidence led ora} been passed. No other point has ^ therefore, I am of the consideredl the award amount too is adequate In a motor accident claim Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ^j^id4)wf "WT^f ^ tt^ TfN^R ^3^?3^T tt of Rs. 25,000/- in favour of pute that neither any certificate e the injury sustained by him. On and documentary, the award has ;en raised by Shri Shrivastava and opinion that the award passed by the Tribunal does not suffer fro^ any illegality or irregularity and case, as per Section 168 of the ^hat is important is that the compensation to be awarded by ttie Courts/Tribunal should be just and proper compensation in the faists and circumstance of each case. It is neither a bounty nor charity. In these circumstances, th| accordingly dismissed summarily. -L appeal deserves to be and is Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge 'wk-«-f»---vsviMws':<':-»-'-y ^T^^i ^^ ^7TS<^I<T^Ht^rr^—;;S/95—11/2008—1,00,000.