INTHEHI(^COCt OFCHB[ATTISGARHATBILASPURrc.G.1 v. Agrawal Infrabuild Pvt.Ltd

D.B.: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhav Manohar Saore & Hon'ble Mr. Justice G. Minhaiuddin MISC. APPEAL [C] N0. 195/2012 APPELLANT Harvinder Singh VERSUS RESPONDENTS Agrawal Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd. and others MEMO OF MISC. APPEAL CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICt®SACT. Apnearance : Mr. S.A. Ansari, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Ufkal Pradhan, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. ORDER (orall (Passed on 15.01.2013) The following order of the Court was passed by Abhav Manohar Sapre. J. Heard. This appeal is filed by the appeUant/claiinant under (2) Section 173 ofthe MotorVehicles Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") against the award dated 24/11/2011 passed by First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, (for short "the Tribunal") in Claim District Surguja, C.G. CaseNo. 39/2011. By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed (3) the claim petition filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Act and awarded a total sum. of Rs. 75,000/- by way of coinpensation 'to the appellant property in motor accident. the damage of So the question that arises for consideration in this (4) appeal filed by the appellant (claimant) is whether any case "^:: f^~^ %.:-^ '"-!!;:-. ^'^- enhancement is made compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant and if so, to what extent? It is a property damage case. Appellant owned one (5) shop near Satpata Main Road and he was also residing there. On 16/04/2010, a Duinper bearing registration No. C.G.15-A/6534 (offending vehicle) driven by respondent No. appellant's negligently dashed rashly 2 shop/house and caused damages..»to the shop/house. According to the appellant, at the' time of accident, he used to eam Rs. 24,000/- per m'onth from his shop. He also alleged that due to accident in question there was property loss to appellant such as shop and the goods stored therein. The respondents contested the claim. Parties (6) adduced evidence. The Tribunal on appreciating the entire evidence adduced by the claimant partly allowed the claim petition. The Tribunal after taking into consideration the suffered damage of property (shop/house & goods) and awarded a lump-surap amount of Rs. 75,000/- towards repair of shop/house and loss of the appellant ;oods which were daraaged in the accident. determination, which is inipugned by the claimant, being is this It on lower side hence this appeal for enhanceinent. We have perused the evidence adduced by the (7) claim.ant and find that no interference is called for in the said finding in as much as the evidence adduced by Tribunal claiinant is sufficient to sustain the finding recorded by the the property daruage in the accident in question. Indeed, we find that the appellant is lucky that no cross appeal was filed for awarding compensation for challenging the impugned finding on which the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 75,000/- to the claimant. The finding awarding conipensation is contained in paragraph-12. The Tribunal that we noticed 'r ^^^ Tiwari ^7 does not seem to have done any exercise of appreciating the evidence for giving an award of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of the claimant. Since this finding is not under challenge, we cannot upset the finding in favour of the respondents. therefore, In our view, taking into account (8) totality of the circumstances taken note of supra, we do not find any ground to further enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, which in our opinion, appears to be just and proper keeping in view the requireraent of the Act. The appeal thus fails and is hereby dismissed in (9) liraine. ^•' (10) No cost(s). w; Sd/- Abhay Manohar Sapre Judge G. Minhajuddin Judge