^TT^T ?RT f<rli<=h ^SH 37T^[ $fr>^|cb 'S^ ^|'q|0<q, ^Tfl^t'KS, ts)<^l'y^< TOCT gi^.....+ft.fr.^..tAO.A.^.-&......^ 200^- 3TT^?T ^^ ( <i^l(SS^) '^TTW^Tf^^T^T APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS: Versus- 1. 17-8-2007:. Shri Vivek Rathore, cou|isel for the appellant. Oral order dictated on Qa/s. L.C. BHADOO. J. <^i^(<rf^1i ^i^<nf ^Fs'^1 <Fai^i< ^^TH 371^1 Shridevi Choubey, W/o C.S. Choubey, Ageci about 42 years, R/o Maitri Vihar Colony, phamtari, Tahsi! & District Dhamtari (G.G.) Ajay Choubey. S/o L.L. Choubey, aged about 45 years, R/o Amapara Ward Dhamtari, Tahsii &. District Dhamtari(C.G.) Chandra Shekhar Choubey, S/o L.L. Choubey, Aged about 50 years, R/o Maitri VJhar Colony, Dhamtari, Tahsi! & DistrictDhamtari (C.G.) Senior Divisional Manager, New (ndia Assurance Co. Ltd., G.E. Road, BhiJai, District Durg (C.G.5 (Miscellaneous Appeal un^er Section 1 73 of the Motor Vehicle Act) Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Siihha. JJ, '^^ 3'WT r^l^tO-)^, ^)TTl'H4|(S, (c|01^^< •sn^i^T'^w 'w^^ WWff 9bNW< ^ 200 wi?r 1q^^ (^^^) ^^T^R'eft^ ^??^i --2- clairhant This appeal has been of the M.V. Act, 1988 for enh^i being aggrieved by the award Accident Claims Tribunal, learned Tribunal has awarded Rs.46,500/- with interest @ 6% ff< i.e. 8-5-2006. There is delay of 26 days i{ We have heard leamed ct well as condonation of delay. W^ It is admitted position that working as Professor of Govemrrt accident in the intervening night 4 along with her husband jn newly js' Dhamtari. The said vehicle wasl Choubey. The said yehicle was | clajmant in a rash and neg!iger|t against a culvert at Potiyadeeh, fracture of Tibia bone below and Ijp. She received treatment |i to join TJbia bone, a surgery wa^ the leg. She remained jn the ho|s as professor. Her monthly inco|i amount of Rs.7,30,000/-. One 41 that on account of accident sh4 30%, after consideration, sam^ kn^e incoBne ^N^ft^ 'Wi^f ^* fe^ Tfe^K ^atRm^ii^T pref^rred by the appellant under Section 173 jncement of the compensation amount, |dated 19-3-2007 passed by the Motor Dhanltari, in cJaim case Nq.57/2006 whereby [compensation amount to the tune of |'om the date of fi!ing of the daim petition i filing this appeal. •unsel for the appellant on admission as have perused judgment of the Tribunal. Shridevi, aged about 42 years, is ent College, Dhamtari. She met with an f 21/22-12-2005 when she was returning )urchased Maruti Wagon R from Bhilai to being driven by her brother-in-law Ajay being driven by the brother-in-law of the !; manner. He dashed the said vehide as a result of which claimant sustained e. She also sustained injuries on head n the Masihi Hospital Dhamtari. !n order conducted and iron rod was inserted in spita! up to 26-12-2005. She is working is Rs.23,145/-. She daimed total f the daimsraised bythe daimant was has become permanent disable up to has not been found sustainable by the GRPRJ - \.^. XI-^C—78 3^sr ^i<<i<^^, ^TQ'HII(S, ts)<y'>w^< ^INdl *^l|ch •W^ 200 ^TI^T ?FT ferli<=h '?T^T ^TT^T $t)^l<^ 3:TT^9T ^T^ ( 4^f^<yk) ^^TTW^f^T ^TT^T -3> Tribunal on the ground that produced who treated her. Onl; has stated that bone has wron! claimant has sustained 30% di^ability. Dr. Iqbal had never treated her. He only gave temporary treatm^ Hospital. No treating doctor Therefore, she has not been abl become disable to discharge h^ salary. Therefore, on this counl <=r>i^t<r(<flTi *ii^<;iT ^fe^t <f^i^i< '^^tf^H^IT^T \\o doctor of Masifimospjta! has been ^ one Dr. Iqbal Pan/ez was examined. He gly been joined, as a result of which the nt for 5 days & issued certificate Ex.P/32, whereas regular treatment an<p surgery was performed in the Masihi of that hospital has been examined. ^ to prove that on account of that she has }r duties as Professor. She is getting full [ we find that the finding of the Tribuna! is not in any manner perverse or i|legal to the extent of permanent disability aliegedly sustained by the victjrr^. Against the medical expejises, al! the bills produced by the claimant have been allowed & an amout{i been allowed. For rest of the d or prescriptions, therefore, rem^ finding of the Tribuna! 1s also b^sed on the sound reasoning & there is no it of Rs.8500/- against medica! claim has 'aims, daimant has failed to produce bills ijning amount has been disa!!owed. This perversity in that. Apart from tt| she was not able to discharge h| Rs.20,000/- has also been aw^ Rs.13,000/- has been awardedj been awarded, thereby jn all R| i js just, reasonable and looking |at, there was loss of one month income, er duties & remained on leave, therefore, ^rded to the daimant. Against disability t Against pain & suffering Rs.5,000/- has ^.46,500/- has been awarded considering the case of the claimant. Th^ compensation amount awarded by the Tribunal, in our opinion, is not S^ss in any manner. The amount awarded |o the facts of the case, therefore, we are \» XI-HC—78 3nip?T ^r f<riich TT^T 3H^T sn^ic^ ^\ Ban/e 3^cT^TFn^T, ?$TQ'(-141(S, Rl01'y^< ^^G ^l^ldl sh^ticb ISM.^ -^ 200 3nct?T T?5T^ ( li^fl<s<^ ) '^TTW^ftn^^r -4. of the considered opinion that a case for enhancement of thej The appeaj being devoi^ hereby dismissed on merits as| Sd/- L.C. Bhadoo Judge chl^(<n^1t11RTR^if ^..fe^ i^l^K '^T3TRR3:n^T the appellant has not been able to make out award. of merit, is liable to be dismissed and jt is well as delay . , Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge \»