i-QGH CGQRT OF CHHATTEG§R§€ AT BELASPUR s i CQRAM: iiON’ELE SHRI Fif—EJEEV GUPTA, CJ, %§GN’ELE S%E§ SbwiL KEMA£ SWHA, .3. MM; Anmeal Na: 6m 0f 2&33 AQMEEw‘: an AL Biseia! Mahante; s/o Sudharam; aged about 45 years, r/o village Nagpura, Tah‘ & Di5tt‘ Burg 0G. VER$£§S ’i‘ Pram Das, sfo Dharam Das, agied 21 years, driver! Rio Basampur, Rajeev Nagan Rajnandgaon 0G. N AED§§aai 1L i Rgsmgndenm i _._....4.‘.———--—-3 iNm—appEcanta \ » > \ \ \ Sainém Singh Bhatia, sic S. Dakjit Siag’n, Housing Beard Colony, Rajnandgaon, Vehmle owne¥ of Maruté N0. MP 26F/0577 3. National Insurahce Company Ltd, Kamat'hl Lai‘le, Rajnandgaon 6.8. (lnsurance Co. Maruti No. 26 F/0577 cover mete A—7"3?Zl‘l5 vallalty 10.0997 to 10.09.98) §S€L l5tPPE£L Lll‘xlBER SEQN 173 OF THE MGTQR VEHQCLES ACT. Present: Shrl NIK. Chatterjee, counsel forthe appellant. Shrl U.N.S. Dec, counsel fer respondent No.3. QRQER {23m Febwary, 2M1) The followin‘g..\0.*der o lhe Ceurt was pa8$ed by Ragga Gama, CA. Appellant — Biselal Mahante is Seeking enhansemeni 0f the mmpensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Abalde’nl ml mv$mw BENCig M CTQ f § Ciaims Tribunai: Burg (for short ‘im: Tribunai‘) vicie award dated ‘4.03.2OG3, passed in Ciaim Case N9.122/19§8. 1 ?) The Tribunal (m a close scrutiny’ef ihe eniire evidence led ‘ efare it found that the claimant oeuid moi esiabiish his claim and ag Llch Whiié di$mi$sing the claimant’s claim patition \xlcle impugned ward dated 04.03.2003 maintainea the award of Rs.25;OOD/— which was awarded i0 the claimant under ‘Seclien MO or" the Motor 1 Whiclee Act under ‘no fault liability’. 3) Shri NK. Chatterjee, learned ceunsel for the appellant {iehementiy ar§ued that the Tribunal has erred in diemieaing the embellant’s claim petitieri and in awarding Gnly Rs.25,GOO/e which twae awarded to the claimant under ‘no r’auit liability’l 4) Shri U.N.S, Dee, learned counsel for reeponcient No.3 the Natianal insurance Company Limited, on the other hand, submitted that in fact, the Giaimant himself was reeponeible for the accident l land t as such the Tribunai ought net to have awarded even lRs.25,QOO/a in the case. ‘5) Claimant Eieelal Mahante on the date ohthe accident wee aged about 45 years. He was Harriet! Ceoiie by profession. The accident occurred at about 9&0 pm 0n 26.121991 0n hie initiat medicai examination, the doctor found smelt of ateohot from the lhreathe of the claimant. The disability certificate EXP/“r“ produced by ithe claimant befere the-Tribunal and issued by AW-Q DrAK. Verma, was issued after about tpur years 0f the accident an 25192001 and the accident occurred an 26.1 2.19Q7. g i l i l b l i 5) On due consideraiion of the submi5sions. of {earned counsel fQEr the pames; and the above—meniianed bread features of the case, wfa are satisfied. that the Tribunai has rightly held that the‘claimant K oéum mt estabhsh hi$ claim. 7’ For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for ‘ interference in the maiter and for enhancement of the compensation i or“! RsQiOOOl- awarded by the Tribunal under ‘no fault liability’. I l 8% V ‘ The apoeal filed by the appellant! claimant for enhancement of l the compensation, therefore, is liabie to bedismissed and is hereby l : dismissed. 9i No order as to costs. Sunil Kumar Sinha ; Judge Sdl- Sd/- . Chief Justice gfo ;.7A subbu