^- ><(- e IN THE HIGH COURT OF (CHHATTISGARH) AT BILASPUR APPELLANT CLAIMANT MISC. APPEAL (C) No.^^/20o3" Mahendra Uike, S/o. Late Pnancham Uike, aged about 51 years, R/o. Chhotelal Dewangan, Kaystha Para, Ward No.5, Dr. Nathu Prasad Tiwari, Behind by X-ray Clinic Durg, Thana- Mohan Nagar, Tahsil and Distt. Durg, (C. G.) VE RS U S RESPONDENTS : 1) ^y. 'y Anil Kumar Sahu, S/o. Anand Ram Sahu, aged about 35 years, DRIVER 2) An-and Ram Sahu, S/o. Punou Ram Sahu, aged about 60 years, Both R/o. Qr.No. F/32, C. G. Rajya Vidyut Mandal Colony Bhilai-3, Tahsil and District Durg (C. G.) 3) The Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd. Power House, Oppo. Project Automobiles, Bhilai, P. S. Chhawani, Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C. G.) INSURER MEMO OF MISC. APPEAL (C) U/S 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT 1988. K!GH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH : SSLASPUR Divjsion Bench Coram : Hon'bie Shri H.L. Dattu, CJ a Hon'ble Shri V.K. Shrivastava, J APPEAL (Cl N0. 210 OF 2007 APPELLANT: Versus RESPONDENTS: Mahendra Uiks AniJ Kumar Sahu and others, Present: Shri Jltsndra Qupta, counsei for the appdiant. None for respondents. ORAL (Passsd on 15th Fsbruar,, 2007) The foliowing orai order of the Court v.'as passsd by Vijay Kusiiar Shrivastava, J. This is an appea! under Section 173 of the Motor yehicies Act, 1988 ffienceforth, "the Act. 19S8") prsferrsd by cSaJmant/app@liant for snhancsmsnt of the compsnsation against the award dated 31/07/2C06 passsd by XS th Additionai Motor Accidsnt CSaims Tribunai, (F.T.C) Durg (henceforth, "the Tribunai") in CJaim Case No. 40/2006, v/hsrsby hs has been awarded compsnsation of Rs.31 ,500/-. 2) The factuaS matrix of ths cass, in brief, is that on 29/03/2004 when the appeijanfc/cEaimant aiong with other persons vvas coming back from KoRha to Durg, on Marshai Jssp bearing No, CG/07/ZD/1325 (for short "She vshjc?@"), driver ofthe vshicte i.s. respondent No.1 driving the vshicte In s rash and nsg!igsnt manner dashed it against a tree, resuitantjy appeiiant sustained injuriss. Appsii'ant fiied an appSJcation under Section of tho Act, 1988 for grant of con'ipensation against the respondents 1SS oft! who ars driver, owner and insurer ofths vehicie. Respondents No.1 and remained sx parte whsreas, rsspondent No.3 contestsd the dajm. d2 3) Learned TribunaS after appreciating the evidsnce passed an alA'©rd in favour of the appe!!ant ailowing compensation §sbeiow:- a) fc) c) d) DisabJJity Psins & sufferings Modica! expenses Dtet Tota! 20,000/- 10.000/- 1,000/- 500/- 31.500/- 4) i A^ai-n/t/4 ^/\s the appsiiant contended that the Tribuna! onSy Loarned counsol for the aDpoSiant contondcd that a!{owsd Rs.31,500/- tolA'ards compsnsatjon and that is not a just and propsr compensation. 5) Appeiiant did not examine medicaS officsr to support his injuriss. No disabiiity certi^cate has been adducsd by the ciaimant, even in abssncs of nisdica! evidence; the compensation has bsen av.'ardsd by the Tribuna! on various hsads as shown sbovs. !t appears that mercy piaysd a vita! ro!e to impress the Tribunai whlch constrainsd the Tribunal to award above compensatjon sven §n absence of iega! evidence to support disabjiity, pains & sufferings. 5) In view of ths above, the av»'ardsan not be catsgorized to be unjust or improper. Appeai being devoid of msrits, is isabte to be dismissed^and igiy dlsmissed. is accordin Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge Raji