,msMVW , HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DlVlSEON BENCH Coram :‘ HONEBLE SHRI MJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON’BLE SHR! SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Misc. Appeai No. 1173 OF 2005 APPELLANT Hemlat Satnami; aged about 22 Ciaimant years, 8/0 Punittam Satnam§, profession — jeep conductor, R/o viiiage GuHu, P.S. Arang, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) >V" Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Ravikant Sahu, Sio Mansukh Lat ‘ ‘ ' Sahu, T.V.S. Victor Mctor cycle rider, R/o Baihar, P.S. & Tahsii - 2. Mansukh La! Sahu, S/o Bisru Ram Sahu, owner of the T.V.S. Véctor Motor cycle, Rio Baihara, P.S. Arang, Distt. Raip.r (C.G.) 3. The New Indra Insurance Comp Ltd (Through the Drvrsronar Manager), Division office, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur, (C.G.) Misc ampeai under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act $988 §Present Smt. Somshukla Sarkar, learned counsel for the appeilant. Aracg, Disii. Rarpur (C.G.) ORDER (01st Aprirg was) E The followmg order of the Court was passed by l Rajeev Gupta, C J Smt. Somsukla $arkar, learnedrcounsel for the appellant is rheard on admission. 32) Appellant- Hemlal Satnaml is seekingA enhancement of the icomoensation awarded by the 13’“ Additional Motor Accident l l 1 I (P‘aims Tribunai, (F.T.C.) Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide l award dated 11/05/2005, passed in Ciaim Case No. 24/2004. 4 ’1“) As against thé compensation of Rs.8,50,0001— oiaimed by the ! 1 v égpeiiant/ ciaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of he Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the otoraccident on 06.01 .2004, the Tribunal awarded a‘ total sum of R§.3,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. Lt) Smt. Som‘shukla Sarkar, learned counsei for the appeliant ehemently argued that the Tribunai has erred in awarding meager amount of Rs.8;000/— as compensation to the appellant/claimant, though the appeliant/ciaimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the accident. 35) Though, the claimant pieaded that he sustained multiple fractures in the motor accident on 06.01.2004, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the iniuries said to have been sustained by the appellant! claimant in the motor iaccident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent idisability. Mere filing of the medical certificate before the I‘Tribunal cannot estabiish the fact that the appeliant sustained fractures in the accident in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in ‘the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupai Raddy, reported in (2005) i12‘SCC 189 and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v.‘Yudhvir Singh and 5another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 395, wherein it was heid that in ithe absence of examination of the Doctor issuing the medical a i r i x l l A v.“.2 certificates, the meéica! certificates are not admissible in evidence. We, therefore, do not find any fauit in the approach of th'e Tribunal in awarding compensation treating the injuries sustained by the appeiiantl ciaimant in the motor accident as simpie in nature. 6) For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. i z).- The appeal filed by the appeilant/ claimant for enhancement 3 of the compensation, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is lhefeby dismissed summariiy. w a ~ Sd/- V r Sdl- ‘ '.' t Sunil Kumar Sinhg; Chief Justice; Judge