Satish Kumar Sahu v. Samsuddin Khan

-1NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 1512 of 2017 Satish Kumar Sahu S/o Kishun Lal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Plot No. 20, Contractor Colony, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant

Versus

1. Samsuddin Khan S/o Shahjal Khan Aged About 43 Years R/o Sekhkari, Post Jainagar, District Korramm (Jharkhand), Presently Residing At Khushi Bhawan, Jindal Road Gorakh, Police Station Kotra Raod, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Driver)

2. Aditya Kumar Sharma S/o Omprakash Sharma Aged About 32 Years R/o Jindal Transport Nagar, Raigarh District Raigarh Chhattisgarh,khushi Bhawan, Jindal Raod, Gorkha, Raigarh, Police Station Kotra Road, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh (Owner)

3. The New India Assurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Thakkar Chambers, In front Of Project Automobile, G. E. Road, Power House Bhilai, Tahsil And District Durg Chhattisgarh ---Respondents For Appellant :

Mr. Aman Kesharwani, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 10/11/2017

1. Heard on I.A. No.1, which is an application for condonation of delay. For the reasons assigned in the application and finding them to be satisfactory, I.A. No.1 is allowed and delay of 25 days in filing the application stands condoned.

2. Present is an appeal by the Claimant assailing the award dated 22.06.2017, passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg, Chhattisgarh, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 108/2015.

3. Vide the impugned award, the Tribunal in an injury case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act has awarded a compensation

-2of Rs.1,96,054/- with interest @6% per annum from the date of application.

4. The contention of the counsel for the appellant is that the compensation awarded is on the lower side considering the nature of the injuries sustained by the Claimant. According to the counsel for the appellant the amount of compensation awarded towards the pain and suffering is also on the lower side and prayed for the compensation be suitably enhanced.

5. Perusal of record particularly the impugned award would show that the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and has also awarded compensation towards the engagement of an attendant, loss of income for two months and also for special diet.

6. Moreover, from the proceedings it reveals that the Claimant has not adduced the evidence of a Doctor, neither was any disability certificate produced during the course of the trial, so as to assess the percentage of permanent disability.

7. The nature of injury discussed in paragraph no.7 also reflects that there is no fracture injury sustained by the Claimant and that the injuries sustained got healed in the course of time.

8. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, for want of an evidence of Doctor and disability certificate, this Court does not find any strong case for interfering with the impugned award.

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