b; .^1',- tf HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SB: HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,J IVIisc Appeal (C) No. 1220 of2007 Appellant Versus Respondents Mamta Lunkad w/o. Shri Mukesh Lukand, aged about 36 years, r/o/ Sunder Ganj Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (CG). Dr. Mukesh s/o. Shri Prem Chand,aged about 40 years, r/o. Sunder Ganj Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil & District Dhamtari (CG). Branch Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Thakkar Bhawan, G.E. Road, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG). (Miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act) Prese^nt : Shri Y.C. Sharma with Shri Sunil Sharma, counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.2. ORDER (Passedon 10-5-2011) 1. The appellant/claimant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the awarded dated 21-03-2007 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (for short 'the Tribunal') passed in Claim Case No. 225/2004 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the Tribunal. 2. Brief facts, in a nutshell, are that on 06-05-2003 whenthe appellant Mamta Lunkad, her husband and other member of the 'i V'.;:i.-% g Sy!i ^^s^''"' famiy were coming to their home town Dhamatari from Rajnandgaon by car bearing registration No. CG-05A-1940 which was driven by the husband ofthe appellant rashlyand negligently, the alleged vehicle dashed the tree located at road side as a result of which the appellant sustained griedvous injuries including fracture. The appellant/claimant byfiling a claim petition underSection 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal claimed compensation of Rs.13,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 6-5-2003 which was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the documents produced by the appellanVclaimant have not been proved. Shri Sunil Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in dismissing the claim petition though the appellant/claimant sustained serious injury including the facture in the motor accident. He also submits that the learned Tribunal has ignored to appreciate the medical bills (Ex.P/7 to P/19). He further submits that the Tribunal has wrongly appreciated the disability certificate Ex.P/20 & Ex.P/21, thus, considering all the aspects of the matter the impugned order passed by the Tribunal be set aside and proper compensation be awarded. Per contra, Shri Dashrath Gupta learned counsel appearing for The New India Insurance Company Ltd.; supporting the impugned order/award contended that the appellant could not establish the grievous injury on account of injury sustained by her in the motor accident and after considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned award and record ofthe Tribunal. 7. So far as the grounds raised by the appellant/claimant is concerned, Mamta Lunkad (AW/1) has deposed that on the date of incident i.e., on 6-5-2003 at about 4.30 p.m., when she was coming from Rajnandgaon towards Dhamtari by Centro Car bearing registration No. CG -05-A 1940 driven by Dr.Mukesh (husband of the appellant) rashly and negligently, the alleged vehicle dashed the tree, as a result of which she sustained grievious injuries includig fracfure in left femer bone. She was admitted in Dhamtari Masihi Hospital for treatment and thereafter she was referred to Khemka Hospital.Raipur from where she was discharged early as she was having her own Nursing home. She further deposed that she resides with respondent No.1 (husband of the appellant) who runs Nursing home. 8. After perusal of the deposition of fhis wifness, it is clear that no document has been produced about the treatment given to her by the Doctor. Neither the treating Doctor of Dhamatari Mahishi Hospital, nor the Doctor who treated the appellant at Khemka Hospital, was examined. Dr. R.S. Thakur (AW/2) member of the Medical Board was examined and proved the disability certificate (Ex.P/20 & P/21), but this Doctor specifically admitted in his cross examination that neither he nor any member of the medical board has treated her. He further stated in his cross examinatipn that he 4 was unable tosay that how much the leg ofthe appellant/claimant was shortened. 9. On a close scrutiny of the entire evidence, it is clear that the docouments produced by the claimant and the statements of both the witnesses recorded by the Tribunal, are not reliable as the same have not been corroborated by the cogent evidence. There is no evidence available on record about the injury and fracture of the appellant/claimant. Therewas no mention about the injury of the claimant in documents (Ex.P/1 to ExP/6)and even in the FIR (Ex.P/3). 10. Having considered all facts and circumstances of the case, l am of the considered opinion that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition of the appellant/claimant and no interi'erence is called for in this appeal. 11. Accordingly, the appeal, filed by the appellant/claimant is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 12. Noorder as to costs. ~~~~~' —- R-N- ^ndrakar ;e Raju r'-r-