High Court Of ChhattisgarhMAC/41/2018dismissed

Dusyant Sahu v. Lalit Sahu

2018-01-10Hon'Ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy2 pages

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 41 of 2018 Dusyant Sahu S/o Ganshayam Lal Sahu, Aged About 35 Years Cast - Teli, R/o Village Sher Thana And Tahsil Mahasamund District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh. ...........(Claimant) ---- Appellant

Versus

1. Lalit Sahu S/o Chamru Sahu, Aged About 41 Years Occupation Driver Mauribhatha Ward No. 13 Mahasamund Thana And Tahsil Mahasamund, District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh. (Driver)

2. Ranjeet Gayakward S/o Ramesh Rao Gayakward Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Chitoud Gurur, District Durg Chhattisgarh (Owner)

3. The New India Insurance Company Limited Madina Vilding Kachehari Chowk Jel Road Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. (Insurer) ----Respondents For Appellant :

Mr. A.L. Singroul, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 10/01/2018

1. Present is a Claimant's appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The challenge is to the award dated 24.09.2016, passed by the 1st Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 156/2013.

2. Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal in an injury case has awarded a compensation of Rs.27,000/- with interest @7% per annum from the date of application.

3. The counsel for the appellant submits that considering the nature of injury and the disability suffered by the appellant, the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal being on the lower side the same deserves to be enhanced.

4. However, on perusal of the record would show that the Claimant has not been able to show any fracture injury sustained as a result of the accident, neither has the Claimant produced any medical evidence to support his disability, nor is there any disability certificate from the medical board to establish any disability suffered by the appellant.

5. In view of the same, this Court does not find any strong case made out by the appellant calling for an interference with the impugned award.

6. The appeal thus fails and is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved