HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR,JJ. IVI.A.(C)No. 500 of 2010 Appellant Claimant Respondents Ramkhilawan Dhruv, aged about 36 years, S/o. Darbari Ram Dhruv, r/o. through PUrshottam Sahu, S/o.Birelal Sahu, Ram Nagar, Shitlapara, Tahsil and District-Raipur (CG). Versus 1. Rajesh @ Bhagwat Yadav, S/o. Tetku Yadav, r/o. village Diparapara, P.S. Chuhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (DriverofVehicle No. CG-8B 1202) 2 Netram Janghel, s/o. Sunder Lal Janghel, r/o. village Silpatti, P.S. Chhuikhadan, District Rajnandgaon (Owner of vehicle No. CG-8B 1202) 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Divisional Office No.2, Madina Manjil, Jail Road, Tahsil and District Raipur (CG). (Insurance Company of the vehicle No. CG8B1202). Appeal under Section V73oftheMptor Vehicle Act, 1988 Present : Shri Rakesh Antony, counsel for the appellant. Shri Abhishek Sharma, counselfor respondents No. 1 & 2. Shri P. Dutta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER (Passedon 15th September, 2010) Per T.P. Sharma^J, 1. By this appeal, the appellant/claimant has challengedlegality and propriety of the award dated 2-1-2010 passed by learned 9th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur(for short, 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case No. 71 of 2009 whereby against the claim of Rs. 21,79,000/- the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum on account of motor accident. 2. The award is challenged on the ground that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal has not Gonsidered permanent disability of theappellant and has awarded low compensation. 3. As per claim petition, on 28-11-2007 when the appellant was driving Swaraj Majda Truck bearing No. CG-4 ZA 1687 from Khairagarh, on the way the respondent No.1 while driving the TATA Dl-207 bearing CG 08-B/1203 owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, in a rash and negligent manner dashed the vehicle of the appellant and due to that the appellant sustained injuries. FIR was lodged and the appellant was examined by the doctor and he was hospitalized for some time for which he spent money and was unable to perform his regular duty because of permanent disability. On account of the aforesaid accident, the appellant has claimed compensation of Rs. 21,79,OOO/-. After affording opportunity of hearing learned Tribunal arrived at a finding that the appellant was also equally responsible /a y!i -1 ~htv~r^.... '"'^".^-^f 6. 8. for the said accident on aceount of contributory negligenceand without any proof of injury and producing the medical documents, the Tribunal awarded the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- to the appellant againstthe compensation of Rs.21,79,000/-. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the award impugned and record ofthe Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel forthe appellant vehemently argued that though the appellant has not examined the doctor and has not produced medical documents,the Tribunal awarded low compensation of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant. The Tribunal committed error in not appreciating the material documents and evidence available on record and further committed infastening 50% contributory liability upon the appellant. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents supported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. In the present case, the appellant/claimant has claimed the compensation on the ground of serious injury including fracture in his right leg and medical treatment, but the appellant has not examined the doctor who treated him to prove the injury and in absence ofthe medical documents, learned Tribunal hasawarded total compensation of Rs. 20,000/- along with inferest @ 6% per annum to theappellant on account of motor accident. On due consideration of the entire evidence, especially in absence of medical evidence regarding the injuries and treatment, we do :^,.. Raju not find any scope for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Thus, the appeal being devoid of meritis liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.N.Chandrakar Judge