RAJ SINGH Vs. BALLU RAM AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal brought by Raj Singh, the claimant against the award dated 6.8.2010 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, [Fast Track Court], Karnal (for short, "the Tribunal") dismissing the claim petition on the ground that the claim petition did not lie under section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, "the Act"] because the permanent disablement is not as per the definition of the same given in Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923 [for short, "1923 Act"].

(2.) The claim petition had been brought under section 163-A of the Act. It is a case where the claimant was alleged to have suffered permanent disability to the extent of 17%. On the question as to whether this case falls within the purview of section 163-A of the Act, it has been held that the permanent disability in this case is not as per the definition of the expression given in the 1923 Act and, therefore, issue No.2 has been decided against the claimant holding that the claimant is not entitled to compensation under section 163-A of the Act.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the disablement is 17%. According to him, on such disablement, compensation has been awarded in two earlier decisions of this court titled as Jatinder Kumar Vs. Kharak Singh and others, FAO No. 852 of 2005, decided on 10.10.2012 , and Jatin Vs. Executive Officedr, MC Ambala City and others, FAO No. 6961 of 2011, decided on 24.7.2013 .