3-.h,t1: ^i 'rni sa ;!lil t ^' ^M^ (l.^i^1 HlGHCOURI'QFOHj-y^mGARI-lft^BILASPUR M.A.^ SingleBench:H^ ApDelIant Applicant Res^ndent NA.No.1 Susheel Rai, a^ed about 50 years, son bf Shri^^^^^^ ^ Caste-Khatri, jr^sidenf of yjllage Mahabeerpur, i3.S. Jainagar, Tahsil Surajpur, Distri(?t Sarguja (CG) ^!.VeFSUs'^.l'\:;,:^i:..' .< 1. The^Grientaf Ijnsurance Gompany L.jrriiteci, thoru!@h - the Branch Manager, the jOriental Jrisursince Company Limjt^d, IMear Ambedkar Chowk -• Ambi}|apur, bistt Sarguja .(CG)' (Insurer)1 ' •'•^ " .,:11 ^.,: "v 2^^^^^^ B^ Nanoranjan (ihosh, ^ resident^^^^^^^^<^ vifiage Kumda poton^ Qtr No^^ . P.8.; Bishrampur,^^^^^^^^ T^ Distt.Sar9uja(GG)(Owtlerl 3. Sat^ Narayar^ Swaye^i^ ^endra Swa^ee, agecF about 2Q years, r^siden^J^^^^^ ColGnyQtr No.iS, F?.Ss Bishrampur, TahsHSo^pur, D|^ MJscellaneousaDDealunderSection 173 bfthelVlotorVehicleAct. 1988 jResDondent hN.A,No.2 Respondent N.A.No.3. P^esent- ^1:.. -.' :;1.,':,. •..'.i:,.;(l::- ,;,,1"1:; :'1''.::.:1,':.1 ^: :• SJiriSush6elDufc>ey;counsellfortheappeliant^ ORAi-ORDER (Passe^h 12th October, 2007) Heardonadmission. (2) The apipellant is aggn^d by^^^t^ ^assed by the lind^ Sujrajpur,Di$t^ SyiiiuJa^G^jriclm case, the M^C.T 'has. aw^ ''-following^heacls-^(.;tj^^ ;;^^0^^^:@^li8% ^ W:'h 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Forpain&sufFering Forexpenses incurred intreatment Forfbod during treatment Forexpensesincurred inconveyanGe Lossofincomefor3 months 6) Special dietforS months = 7) Cost of dependoncy = Total Rs.25,OOCV- Rs.29,028/- Rs. 3.000/-1 Rs. 7,971/-i Rs.Q,000/- Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 6,000^ Rs.84,999/- ) my^^ I Priya (3) Learned counsel for the appeliant did not dispute that no permanent disability was suffered by theappellant/claimant who idid not fiie a disability certificate or examine the doctor concerned. In this View of the matter, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant fhat the compensation awarded by the M.A.C.T. is on^the lower sidecannot be accepted. (4) No ground for interference is made out in the;award passed by the M.A.C.T. Theappeal being deyoid of any meritis dismissed, at the'stage of admission. However, it appears that in para 19, the sum total of the compensation awarded comes to. Rs.84,999/- whereas the compensation awarded by the Tribunai has been shown as 86,499/- which is thus in excess of Rs.1,500/-. Since this is a mathemetical calculatjon error, it could and should be corrected 5uo moto by the iVi.A.C.T. A- i^y\^. ^^ ^^^^^ \-» ks^ MA^^ -S^^^^^ Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^