(@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA8PUR I.A.(C1 No. 1673/2008 DB.: HON?BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUNIL KUMAR SINHA & HOrBLE SHRI JUSTICE T.P.SHARMA. RESPONDENTS/ NON-CLAIMANTS APPELLANT/ Anand La1, aged aboiit 30 years, CLAIMANT s/o M.M.Lal, R/'o Ramhepur I.ormi, Tahsil aDcl Police Station Lonni, Distdct Bilaspur(CG) Versus 1 Budhraiii Yadav s/o Rangal Yadav aged about 40 years, R/o Sardha TahsU aad Police Station Lormi, District Bi1aspiir(CG) (Owner ofveliicle Jeep No, CG 10 ZD 5458} 2 Saatosh Kumar s/o Chaiider Dhhmiar, aged about 30 years, R/o Ramhepur, Lormi, Tahsil aad Police Station Lormi, Distdct Bilaspur (CG) (Driver of vehicle Jeep No, CG 10 ZD 5458) 3 The New India Insuran.ee Conipaiiy Lioiited, through the Branch Majaager, Rajeiidra Nagai', Bilaspur(CG) (Tnsurer) MISCBLLANBOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 (2) OP THB MOTOR VBHICLBS AaF^19SS Appearance : Sliri M.K. Bhaduri,CounsRl forfhe appellant. ORALORDER {17.12.2008) The followiiig order of this Court is passed by Buati Kumar Binha. J. MA( C ) No. 1673/2008 Shri Bhadiiri is heaiTl on I,A.No.01/2008, which is an appUcatioii for coiidonatiou ofdelay in filing the appeal, According to ofl&ce report, the appeal is bai^ed by 03 days of Imiitation. On due cousidei'atiou of the siihniissions, made by leanied counsel for the appellant, we ai'e satisfied that the appellaDf has beeu able to explain the delay in filmg the appeal and the sanie deserves to be condoned, Accoixlingly, I.A,No.01/2008 is atlowed and the delay in filing tilie appeal m hereby condoiied. Shri Bhadiisi is also heanl cn admissiori. The appellajit/claiiriant ties fi1ed this appeal iiiider SectioD 173(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 agamst the awai'd dated 26.7.2008, passed by the IInd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Mungeli, District- Bilaspur (CG) in C1aim Case No. 54/2007, wherel^y, the aiiiount of Rs.65,745/- t^as heen awarded as couipensatioii to the appe11ant on accoiint of personal iDJiiries sustained Ijy liuii in a motor accideiit. The Tribiiual has also awarded iuterest @ 8 % p.a. from the date of fltm.g of the Claim petition Le. from 18.6.2007 till its rcalization. The Insurance Company has beeii priniaiily tield liahle to pay the afonesaid aaiouiit of conipeusation to tlie appellaiit/claimant, The appeUant/claimaut has filed this appeal for enhauGeiiient ofthe said amount. A perusal of para 11 of the award woi~$1d stiow that on account ofthe said accident, the appellant siistainef! injuiy ou his head aiid in the CT Scen, it was detected tliat there was blood clotting cn the nght teinporo-parieta? regioD of the appellant, The aforesaid dotting was gnevous iii nature. The sppe'ilant had not sustained any bony injuiy, Though the appellant/claimajit, clainied Rs.2 lacs ou accouut of medical expeiises, but, the Tribunal awarded a sum ofRs.39,945/-towaiTls medical expenses cn the basis of various bills/rcceipts produced by ttie appellaDt vide exhibit A-<S to A-72. The Tribunat fiirther awerded a suni of Rs,5,000/~ towards couveyance aiid Rs.5,800/- towards loss of MA(C) No. 1673/2008 eaniing to the appellant because the appellaut coiild not perfonTi Ms diities froni19.12.2006 to Febroaiy, 2007. The ?oss ofearamg has been calculated 011 the basis of monthly pay of the appellant, whichwas Rs.2,400/- p,sii. Siace the iiijuiy sustained has not caused any permanent disability to tlie appellaiit, tlierefore, iii additioii to the above, the Tsibunal awarded a suni of Rs.15,000/- ou account of paiu aud suffering and in fliis majraer, a totel siim of Rs.65^745/- was awarded by the Claims Tnbunal to the appellant on account of said injusy sustained by hiiii in the motor accident. Leamed counsel for the appe11a'ot argiies that tlie amouDt 011 account ofpais?L aad suffering is on the lower side and the complete niedical expenses have also notbeen awai-ded. We have perased the entire award. Looking to the natiire of iiijuries sustaiued by the appellaBt aud tliat due to tlie said injures, he was iinable to pej-fomi his work m fhe period betweeu 19th December, 2006 to Febraaiy, 2007, in our cousidered opinion, t1ie Tnbnnal has rightly awarcled a sum. of Rs. 15,000/- towards paiii aBd sufTei-ing. There is hardly any scope for eiihance53ient in the anioTint awarded irnder the above head. So far as iTiedical expenses is concenied, it is cleariy me-utioiied in para 18 of the award that all the bitls/receipts produced by the appellaiit were accepted by the Tribiina? ajid by accepting all tliose bills, a suiii of Rs,39,945/- has been awarded. This can also not be said as unreasonable. For t3ie forgoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of tjie amoiint of compensation axvarded to the appellant/clainiant, The sppeal has uo ments, Tlie same deseives to be asid is acconiingly dismissed at the aduiission stage. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sunii Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- T.P. Sharma judge sunita