Q9 gingle Eench :- Hon’b!e Shri RN, Chandrakari J MA. N0. 29 0f 2005 arasram, 8/0 $underlal, Caste — Kanwar, ageci about 36‘years, Occapation — Agricuiture, Rib Bharkotaia, Thana —- Chichola, Tahsil -— Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Appel lam F§1GH CDURT OF GHHARTHSGARH AT BILASPUR i { Veaus Khemchand Sinha, Sia Vishram Sinha, Occupation — Driver, aged about 24 years, R/o ViHage — Chichoia, Thana —Chichoia, Distyict — Rajnandgaon (CG) 2. Amand. E‘a'x Vargis, $10 K5. Vargis, Rio Village — Chichda, Thana —- Chichoia, District — Rajnandgacn (CG) 3. Nationa! insurance Company Limited‘ Branch Kamthi Line, Rajrrandgaon (CG) Respcndemg : 1,. ‘ , v x. r MESELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 1?3 GF THE MOTOR VEH!CLES ACT. Appearance : Shri Basant Dewangan, counsei for the appeiiarrt. Shri Anand Shukla oounse! for respondents No 1 & 2, Shri GVK. Rao, counsel for respondent No. 3. I (Passed Oral on 21; G der June, 201 1) 1) The appeHant/claimant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the award dated 172092004 passed by Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short the Tribunai) in Claim Case No. 110/1907 «whereby the claim petition fiied by the appeiiant was dismissed by the Tribunai. 2) Brief facts, in a nutshell, are that on 20.05.1g97 when the appeliant ParasRarn Sahu was tiding his calf hear tube welt situated at Urei P Dabari Tola GE. Road for drinking water at that time the offending vehicle Ambassador Car beafing registration No. MP. S. — 8865 driven by ihe driver Khemchand nomappiicant/respondent No. 1 coming from opposite side rashiy and negligeniiy dashed ihe appeiiant and his caif as a result of which ihe appeliam susiained grievous injury in his right hand and waist. He was admit‘ied in District Hospitai, Rainandgaen for tieetmeni‘ F.i.R. was i'egis’zered agains‘l hem-applicantllespmdent No. W J. 1 vide EXP/1. The appiicantlciaimant was aged abeui 36 yeai's. He was selling vegetable and on acceunl of accident he could not run his shop as a iesult of which he suffered economicai loss ef Rs.1 ,08,000!-. 3) The appellahlfciaimani: by‘filing a claim petition under 3ection 188 of the Motor Vehicles Acl before the Tribunal oiaimeol compensation of R51 ,33,000I- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 20.05.1§9?. The Tribunal has dismissed the claim petition filed by the appeliantlciairnant on the ground that the appellantlclaimant has not produced the documents regarding iniuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 4) Shri Basant Dewangan, learned oounsei for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition though the appellantlclaimant sustained serious injuries including the fracture in the motor accident. He aiso submits that the leai‘ned Tribunai has ignored the evidence adduced by the appellant/claimant. He further submits that the Tribunai has wrongly appreciated the facts and evidence adduced by the appellant/claimant. Thus, considering all the aspects of the matter the impugnedorder passed by the Tribunai be set aside and proper compensation he awarded. 5) Per contra, Shri Anand Shukla, learned counsel for respondent No. t & 2 and Shri G.V.K. Rao, iearned counsel appearing for respondent‘No3 the National Insurance Company Limited have supported the impugned order/award passed by the Tribunai. 5) l have heard thelearned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and records of the Tribunal. ” \ Lu 0g 7) On perusal of the record it is ciear ihat before the Tribunal appeliant/‘ciaimant Paras Ram (AW/1) was examined himself in summit of his ciaim. For \the reasons best known to the appeiiani/ciaimant no doctci was examined before the Tribunal .‘lo establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeliantlclaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those iniuries resulted in any permanent disability. 8) After perusai of the records, it is clear that the appellant/claimant has not produced any document about the injuries and medical certificate before the Tribunal and no Doctor was examined about the injuries. §) On a ciose scrutiny of the entire evidence, it is clear that the documents produced by the claimant and the statement of claimant recorded by the Tribunal are not reliable as the same have not been corroborated by the cogent medical evidence and there is also no evidence available on record to show that the appeliant sustained injuries including fractures. 1Q) Having considered all the facts and circumstances ofthe case, l am of the considered lopinion that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the 'claim petition of the appeilant/ctaimant and no interference is called for in this appeal. 1t) Accordingiy, the appeal, filed by the appellant/claimant is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. t2) No order as to costs. Sd/- Rangnath Chandrakar ' Judge Vila?! ._