<?' IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C ) N0. / 200' Versus Respondents ^ ry^y .ti." •$?> -.,- y. .'^ .-^.-y A V.3. 'j^ <^ <^ [arjeet Singh S/o Sangat Singh, Aged about 38 years, R/o Near Gurudwara.Tantibandh Police Station - Amanaka, Tahsil 8s District Raipur (C.G.) Mahendra Yadav S/o V. Yadav, Occupation: Truck Driver, R/o M.S. Service Station Telibandha, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) Guruvinder Singh S/o H. Singh, Occupation : Truck Owner, R/o M.S. Service Station Telibandha, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.f:"s'"?s ^^ The-Qricntal InGurance Compsttiy Limited, Through : Divisional Manager, . Divisional Office, Kachahari Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur (C.G.), MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OFTHE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988 FOR ENHANCEMENT OF AWARD CANC l^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. M.A.(ClNo.1%9of2008 APPELLANT Harjeet Singh. Versus RESPONDENTS Mahendra Yadav and others. Shri S.K. Guha, counsel forthe appetlant. ORAL ORDER (22/06/2011) Heard. (2) This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act for enhancement of the award amount. (3) The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,50.945/- to the appellant. (4) The appellant suffered injuries on his legs in an accident which took place on 29/07/2004. In his statement the appellant stated that he was admitted in Khamgaon Hospital for two days and thereafter shifted to a private Hospital in Akola from where he was brought to M.M.t. Hospitel, Raipur, where his right leg was operated and grafting was made on the left leg. From this statement of the appellant it does not appear that any of the injury was of such nature that the appellant would be permanently incapacitated to do his job of driver. (5) The physician who has treated appellant has not been examined. The disability certificate has been issued by Dr. G.S. Bachchu who has not treated the appellant. The Tribunal has rightly disbelieved the disability B. B ^^sss&^^,^ "^t?-.. ^-^•^ "-^ ^s ^2.- certificate on the ground that the same has not been issued by the District Medical Board or by the treating physician. The Tribunal has already considered the documents by which the appellant has proved expenditure incurred in his treatment. (6) Looking to the nature of injuries and the amount already allowed in favour of the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that just compensation has already been awarded and there is no scope for enhancement of the award amount. (T) Consequently, the appeat Tails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge y-