$3 MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO. ($1 krj/ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BI LASPUR(C.G) 4 wig; *éh "3% APPELLANT 1) C RANT f, 2003 KW Chhatrapal Vanna. Aged about 22 W's, Slo. Ramratan Verma, R10. Gram Patastatj, Post-Nem'a, P5. Suhela, Dist:Raipur(CG) VERSLE Kama! Narayan, Sic. Dhanau Verma Rio. VilLNihja, P.0-Samgaon, P.S.-Kharora Tahsil 8: Dist—Raipur ((3.6) Ramkrishna Naval: Slo Lakhanlal Nayak Rlu,vi|L &VF*ost— Saragaan, P.S.—Kharara Tahsi! 3: DisbRaipur (m3) The New India Insurance Co. Ltd, Through the Divig’onal Manager, Divisionai Qftice, Kutchhery Chowk, Jaii Road, Tahsii & DigtrRaipur (CG) Miscellmeour. Ameal med smion 173 Motor Vehicle Act 1938 yl) . REEPDHDEHE I yHN-‘AEMICAHI K ii] @d ‘ gy V $"" “up . / Z) f L . ‘3), f \y" VV" 1 _ XI-HC—~7S HUNDO. $31, arwo3 Ha 209 mm (Wu) mwmm ‘ WWWEE WWW Division BenCh i g & A 31 -01 -2005. Shrl SIC. Verma; counsel Shri NIK, Agrawal, Sr Ad ocate with Shri Ravindra Agrawal‘, counsel for u Jespondeht No.3i Insurance Com any. None for respondents No. Heard. t This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 has been preferred against the impugned ward dated 07-02-2003 by which the learned Claims Tribunal has dismissed th claim petition tiled by the appellant on account issues in this case and vide lssu No.1, the Tribunal has held that the injuries sustained by theappellant were he result of the accident by use of the motor vehicle in question. The furthe submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that even after holdin the aforesaid fact and deciding the issues in favour of the appellant, the Tribu al did not award any amount of compensation to the appellant holding that t e appellant is not entitled to receive any compensation under Section 1 WW§WW tafim‘m r the appeHant. and 2‘ of the accident, which‘touk ptace n 22-08-2002 at about 2.15 pm. Learned counsel for the a pellant submits that the Tribunal framed five A of the Motor Vehicle Act. ln para 9 of the impugned award the Tribunal al oheid that the radius, humerus and femur bones of the appellant were foun fractured. During the pendehcy of thi appeal, a compromise has beenentered into between the appellant!Claimant nd the insurance Company. According to the said compromise, the insurance ompany has agreed to pay Rs.35,000/— as a lump sum compensation to the a pellant on account of the injuries sustained by him. A document to this effect h s also been med lt is also agreed by both the .A parties that the said amount sh Il be paid within a period of two months from mm HON’BLE SHRI FAKHRUDDIN, A. C.J. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUM - 6 mm hMQLlWB 111 zoo WW (WEI) WWW WW wm ...L’ $aima1éw today and in View of the aforesaid compromise, the appellant does not want to prosecute the appeal. WWW We have gone through the records. The amount of compensatlon worked out on compromise appears to be just and proper. ln this View of the matter, it is directed that the appellanticlaimant shall get j tgtal sum of Rs.35,000/—’as com sensation. lt is made clear that if the amount ‘M agreed is not pald to the appellant as per the compromise arrived at by the parties within a period of two monlhs from today, the appellant shall be entitled to sharge interest @ 9% per annum‘ rom the said date till its realization. parties. The appeal stands dispos d of in terms of compromise arrived atkby the We, however, very much ppreclate the efforts made by learned counsel for the parties. . Counsel’s fee as peLrules Fakhruddin Acting Chief Justice