HIGH COURT OFCHHATriSGARH: BSLASPUR SingIeBench: Hon'bte Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshnnulch, J. x"^ lll- ,fe-- \ Appellant Ciaimant Respondents iVI.A.C.No.113Gof200Z- Salik Das, Son iof Shri Baldeo Das, aged about 55 years, Occupation-AgrJculture andPriest (Yajifnani), ResidentofVJtiage Judwani, Police Station Jainagar, Tahsii Surajpur, DistrictSurguja(CG) Versus 1. Chetan Ram, Son pf Shri Lalu Ram, aged about 22| years, Caste Panika, Resident of Viltege Parsapara, Pofice Station and Tatisil Surajpur,, District Surguja(CG), l 2. Rambilas Sahu, :SQn of Shri Chetnarayan Siahy, aged^ about 28 years, Resident i of Vitlage Kudeli, Post Sarbhoka, Police Statton Patna, District Koriya (CG) | 3. Falendra Sahui Son of Shri Ram Sunder, Sahu, jResident of Viliage Umapur, Polioe Station and Post Ramnujnagar;VTahsJi Surajpur, District Surguja(CG) 4. United India : Insurance Company Limited, through Branch Manager, United India ^lnsurance Company Limited, Branclt] Office Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur, District Suiguja (CG) • f Appeal ynder Section 173 of the ^otor Vehicies _: Act,_ :1.988; for enhancementoftheaward Present: , Shri A.K. Shukia with Shri O.P. Yadav, counsel for the appeitant v ''•':\'.'/i\'\- ..•::'''• '•;^^ .^—-.-.-—-—^——-„._-»—, :ORALORDER - ' ' " . (Passedon 17.02.2009) . Heard on admission. (2) The appellant te aggrieved by the award dated 17.07.2007passed by the 2 Additiohai JViotor Accidents Ciaims Tribunai, Surajpur, Distt Surguja -(henceforth the ^Tribunal?) in ciaims oase No.10/2005, whereby ir^^an injury case, the Tribunai has awarde^ compensation of Rs.56,OOOP to the appelSant/claimant (3) TheTribunaihasawarded'compensatjon as under:- @ A. Towardsexpenses jncurred in treatment B. Towards pain & suffering due to fracture ofthe right femurbone C. Tovvards future discomfort in Pursuing his da.y to day activjties D. Tovvards special diet == E. Towards cost of attendant TotaS Rs. 15,000 Rs.25,000 Rs,10,000 Rs. 3,000 Rs. 3,000 Rs.56,000/- (4) The soie ground urged by the learned counsel for the appeilant in this appeal is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is whoiiy djsproportionate to the permanent disabiSity sustained. by the appellant/clalmant namely Salik Das. It was further argued that the appellanVclaimant had proved the disability r certiftcate Ex.A-36 dated 16.12.2006. No otherground was urged. (5) Having considered t'ne submissions of the iearned counse! for the appeliant, 1 have perused the record. The appeilant is aiieged to have sustained the injury on 18.06,2003. The claim was fiied on 15.07.2004. The disability certificate is dated 16:12.2006. The clainnant did not iead any medical evidence to establish any nexus between theinj'uiv' mentioned in the dIsabiHty certificate and the injury sustained by him in the accident. "X-feyTo y.-^^" prove that the claimant had sustajned fracture^hasalso not been produced before theTribunai. ^ (6) !n this view of the matter and after perusal of paragraph-17 of the impugned awartet, 1 am of the considered opinion that no ground for enhancement of oompensation avvarded by the Tribuna! is made out. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid'of any merit is dismissed at the stage of admisslon. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^