XI-HC-78 qi^^l sh*lich 3ST "qMK.i'i), »T(1«'I<B,&f1IU^< .{A^.cr.. ."^•^?/ W1T 200 3TI^?T Mach ('iqi^^ff) sn^T^ffR-ii* (TSITSn^rsih^icb s^TrwCTfsffsn^r ftPPELLANT: CLAIMENT Vetsus iESPONDENTS: Present:- Shri S.C. Verma.counset for the app ORAL' (Passed on sbi'ilfi'fl-i tii>«nTffte<^t<lSit<i< ^fsri^trsn^n Bachchu Ram Kurre, S/o Late Ramdayal Kurre, Aged about 48 yrs., R/o Mohada Bazar, P.S. Amanaka Raipur, Tah & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Chhatrapal Singh Thakur, S/o Punni Singh Thakur, Aged about 25 years, R/o M.I.G.62, Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Raipur, Tah. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Mesors O.P. Satyapal Constractors, R/o M.I.G. 62, Veer Sawarkar Nagar, Raipur, Tah.& Distt. Raipur. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Branch Office Stadium Road, T.P. Nagar, Korba, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Offlce, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.) ellant. ORDER 20-3-2007) XI-HC-78 3^'^Trai^ra', ®Tf)'M'iG,Rfciiyy «TTR<?11 Sb^lch ^ 200 3TT^?riRRf? (l^f3g^sT) 3TI^?T W R-ll'tti fTaTT 3TT^?T ?^T STcnw'ErfStTsn^r The appellant has preferred TRe M.V. Act, questioning legaiity and cd( 2006 passed by the Additional Moto< claim case No.66/2006 filed Rs.14,50,000/-. The case of the claimant wi |this appeal under Secuon 173 of ^rrectness ofthe award dated 20th July Accidents Ctaims Tribunal, Raipur, in by the a^pellant herein. The ctaimant claimed truck bearing registration No.C.G.-1 against the appellant, as a result of^ leg. He also sustained injury in the| |Ambedkar Hospital, remained in |expenditure of Rs.20,000/-. He us^d Ibecome permanent disable. Par^- |appellant was not able to adduce ev| ]X-ray report (Ex.-A/T) there was no ft |has not examined any doctor to Ipermanent disability sustained by |before the learned Tribunat to prov|a (charge sheet against respondent Noj Mnder Sections 279 and 337 ofthe 1.1 fo the conclusion that the applicant °hi^lo41-i iiiciT ff tetA <Riwi< ^sif^rsn^T ^s that respondent No.1 was driving |2/ZC-1830 at a high speed, dashed )?hich he sustained fracture in the right left ear. He was operated in the Dr. |the hospital in which he incurred to earn Rs.200/- per day. Hs has ^-10 of the award shows that the jdence regarding fracture. As per the factureinthelegoftheappellant. He ^stablish nature of the injuries and |him nor he adducedany evidence i|a his case. Even in the safd ease, j1 was filed fbr conimission dfoffence P.C. Ultimately, the Tribunat reached fias not been able to prove his case, -fe. ... XI-HC-78 3^ •^I'MICI'M, ^Tflti'16, (sldlUy HI+<WI aiTTTcfi ^ 200 3TI^?T T3RT (l^f^^?) aiT^T °RT f^IR; (raTSn^Tshtfich Ban/e ^.herefoTe, ^ssu6 No.2 w^s d^idec^ against Ntn. How^vsr, s ^un^ of |Rs.10,317/- has been awarded infijivour of the appellant herein against medical and miscellaneous expense^ incurred bythe appellant. [evidence adduced by the appeltan|t herein has awarded just and fair |compensation in favour ofthe appeli s^crraT^ri?ct sn^r —(^. +M[d41-1 ITHrafffte^ <Rl.MK ^.af^ITSTI^T Therefore, in view of ttie abo ^e, leamed Tribunal after scrutinizing int. 1 do not find any iltegality or i|ifirmity in the impugned award. The appeal, is therefore, liable to be dism|issed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge