>-: HjGH COURTOF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR Sinaie Bench : Hon'bteShri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Miscelianeous Appeai (C)No. 102172007 [VlohitramSahu, Aged about27years, S/oShri Noharram Sahu, R/o Village Parastarai, Teh & Distt. Dhamtari versus RESPONDENTS 3. Sanjay Sahu, S/o Ghanshyam Sahu, Aged about 29 years, R/o Village Nand Kathi, Thana-NandinJ, Distt. Durg (C.G.) , M/s Kishore Rice Mili, Durg, Sirtex-33, Paras Gompiex, Station Road, Distt. Durg (C.G.) The New indja'insurance Co. Ltd., G.E. Road, Power House, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal Under Sectron 1 73 otMotorVehicles Act Present : Shri Vimiesh Bajpai, counsel for the appellant. (Passed on 11"'September, 2007) Heard on I.A. No. 1 for condbnation of deiay in filing the Forthe reasons mentioned in'fhe application it is allowed and the delay in fiiing the appeal is condoned. The appellant is aggrieved .by an _award dated 22.2.2007 passed by 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari (hereinafter referred tpas "the MACT) in Claim Case No. 121/2006 whereby compensation of Rs. 27,100/- has been awarded for the grievous injury i.e. fracture of ths davicle bone suffered by the appellanf/claimant. The MACT awarded compensation as under: - A - (a) Actua! medical expenses incurred (b) Towards pain & Suffering (c) Towardsspecialdiet (d) Towards !oss of earning Total eompensation Rs.2,100/- Rs. 5,000/- Rs. 2,000/- Rs.18,000/- Rs.27,100/- In para 12 of the impugned award the MACT had noticed a serious discrepancy in the report of Dr. Vinod Pandey and the disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board. Whereas the report of the doctor shows that the fracture had united properiy and compietely, the District Medicai Board had issueda permanent disability eertificate of 45%. it aisoappears that Dr. Vinod Pandey had admitted incross-examination that he did nottreat the appellant and had absoiutely no idea as to howthe ciaimanyappellarit had sustained the injuries. It is also pertinent ,to note that the appel!ant/claimant did not adduce any documentary evldence to prove the duration of hospitalization or tosubstantiate the injuries suffered by him in the accident. The MACT thus rightly held that the claimant had failed to prove that he had suffered 45% permanent disability due to the accident. Kvr In this view of the matter.compensation of Rs.27,100/- awarded by the MACT is just and reasonable compensation. No ground for interference in the impugned award is called for. In the result,the appeal is dismissed atthe stage of admission. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge