^•- '-HG-78 ^3^r^i^irt^;tp'x^»(i'l|xsjsl^c^l^l^ 1TOI%^^^ ' ^^"^^ • "'"^i^ 2@^ 3TI^?T1^>^rfg6T^) OT^^cCTRTl^ ^ ^TT3TT^^T^i<^ 4 -^ -^ ?^T^^Tf^?r 3TT^$T APPLELLANT: CLAIMANT RESPONDENTS: NON-APPLICANTS (Miscellaneous Appeal under 1988) Division Bench: Hon. Shri Dhirendra Mishra 81 Hon. Shri Dilio RaosahebDe 26-11-2008:- Shri A.L. Singraul, counsjel Heard on M.(C.)P. No.1 delay in flling this appeal, as t( of 176 days.as perthe office n|ote % :;fei. %^1^1^ -qMiqJ<y)<n^+ll^c5l'^*f^Qj^R^N ^ 3rf^T3TT^$Ti ' - N Nand Lal, S/o Kallu Ram Khute, Aged about 40 years, R/o Viilage Adsena, District Raipur (CG) 1-Versus- Kamal Narayan Verma, S/o Dhanau Ram Verma, R/o Vjllage & Post Saragaon, Police Station Kharora, Distt. Rajpur (CG) Ramkrisna; S/o Lakhan La! Naik, R/o Village & Post Saragaon, Distt. Raipur (CG) The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Jai! Road, Raipur (CG) Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, hniukh. JJ s|elfor the appellant. 11637/2004, applicatlon for condonation of ie same has been preferred with a delay 1C-78 ^^^i€icyq,yT?14l<l4^Rlrii4iy *ii*iwi a»iT^ 3Tr^9T q^q) (licl^61<€S) ^200 K'3Tr^^T<^Tl^1 ^n3TT^^T?P^tcp •^ 4 ^^ ^TcTTW ^?T 3TI^$T cpi<ii<l)<ni +11+ic^'^" (^l<si<Ritci^ ^ 3Tf^T 3TT^^T For the reasons indica|ted in the application, which is also supported by the affidavit ofth^ delay in filing the appeat is con<^ appellant, the application is ailowed and oned. Aiso heard on admission.1 This is claimant's appea| for enhancement of the award, as the Ciaims Tribuna! vide award dat|ed 21st Juiy, 2003 passed in CIaim Case No.9/2003 has awarded a sun(i of Rs.3,000/- to the appellant towards injuries sustained by him inthe Inotor vehicle accident. On the basis of the ple^dings of the respective parties, learned Claims Tribunal has passed th<| impugned award by recording a flnding thaton the date ofthe accident i.e. 22-8-2002 the accident occurred on account of rashand negligent (priving on the part of respondent No.1 as a result thereof the appellant'l clalmant did not adduce any d( appellantremained in the hos|3ital due to injuries sustained by him or that he spent Rs.25,000/- - 30, |sustained injuries. However, since the |cumentary evidence to establish that the DOO/- inthe treatment and that he did not produce any treatment paper ir|duding discharge ticket whereby it couid be established that the appeila|it sustained boney injuries. Disbelieving the oral evidence of the app^llant in this regard the Claims Tribunal awarded total sum of Rs.3,00(]>/- towards pain and suffering caused to the appellant due to injuries su^tained by him in the said accident. Learned counsel for the ^ppellant yairly submltted that except oral evidence oftheappellant thereps no evidence available on record before the Claims Tribunal to substant|ate the claim ofthe appeilant, ijSfiliiSlii® T ?HC-78 *II»ICTI^m^ ^3^^i^ic>w,tnTl^i'li<s,[6iwi'<i^t ^^..^^..^LL6^....... ^I^^OO? 3Ti^q^ (4?i^cj<^) 3TT^5T<PT^Flt<p ^n^^TWTT^ K V. A^- g^w^rf^raTT^^T —sl any documentary evidence in cpIA| Fcy><i1vi ffPTc^f^"fe^^iTSR ^) 3Tf^T 3TT^^T Therefore, we are ofthe ^onsidered opinion that in the absence of he form of treatment papers, discharge ticket ete. the Tribunal has ri|ght!y disbelieved the contention of the claimant that he sustained grie|/ous injuries in the sajd accident and he remained in the hospital for 5-6|days as jndoor patient. There is no substance i|n this appeal, the same is Hable to be disqi^sed and it js hereby dism ssedlnlimine. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge