^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fCHHATTISGARH) MISC^APPEAL -rrf /2004 APPELLANT CLAIMANT /ibukhuwaram Mandavi, aged about 38 years, S/o Taturam Mandavi/R/o Village Kariyatola, Thana Dongargoan, At present Patel para, Ambagrah Chowki, Distt. Rajnandgaon. Versus Respondents Driver Puran Kumar Sonkar, aged about 35 years, S/o Manrakhan Sonkar, ^^\ R/o Mathpara Ward No. 30, ^^•- Rajnandgaon. &^'&?y /\ ^" ^Mahesh Yadav, Aged about 45 Owner 's^.'_<"v ^ ^€ /^years S/o Faguvaram Yadav, R/o Chowkadiya Para, Rajnandgaon <>*'^ /y ^/'^' <-• <" The National Insurance Co. Ltd.. <;v ^sjhrough Branch Manager, ^ranch Office, Kamtee line, Rajnandgaon ^l-^-^-^-^'l APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT l*—^ NIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SmQle Beoch: Hoii'bte Shri Justlce Prashant Kumar APPELLANT RESPQNDENTS NI.A.No. 598 ^2004 Dul^uwaram Mandavi Versus Puran Kumar Sonkar and others. Shri Anand Shukla, counsei for the appellant. Shri Anand Gupta, counsei for respondent No.3. APPEAL 173 OF ACT ORAL 116.07.2010) Heard. (2) The ciasmant has thls for of the amount of compensation. The Tribuna! has Rs.5,000/- %s compensatlon to the for the fracture on left bone. (3) Though the appeltant has a by the Medlcal Board but the (Ex.P/4) has rsot proved by examining any Officer. (4) In the matter of Vs. 'sn thls Court by Its order 05-07-S has that the and the by the clalmant before Tribunai wlthout the doctor cannot be Into consideratlon for enhancement of the compensatlon. (5) In the of A.P. SRTC Vs. P. Th'isvpal in (12) SCC 189 and In the matter of ffomar @ ¥s. anff In (7) SCC 305 the 'v Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the sald prsnciples. It Is ^tbund that the has faiied to proof the certificate. 't^-^^.. ^:-'--L^^..:'..^^,...^.:.1..-. \J.,' 2,- Learned counsel for the appettant has argued that the bllls purchase of medlcines have by the claims Tribynat. On perusal of the bilSs (Ex.P/6) it that some of the bitls whlch are of amount In the year ^302 the accldent took on 29-11-1999. In thls view of the matter, st was necessary for the appedant to have examlnedthe shopkeeper or Manager of the shop who has Issued the bilts. The clalms Trlbunal has not commltted any error In the biSte computlng the amount of compensatlon. There Is no for of the compensatlo" amount. The appeat and Is hereby Sd^- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge \-