% II CJ. & ' (. No.1076 Rohit Deshmukh S/o Prahaiad Deshmukh, Age about 42 years, r/o Gram Bekhaudi, Post Nagpura, Ths.na - Pulgaon, District ~ Durg (CG) Cialmant Non-claimants 1. Vinod Kumar S/o Vasudsv Piiie (Madrasi), R/o Shambhu Patei, Infront of Pars.had House, Girdhari Nag-ar, District - Durg (CG) (Driver) 2. Gaurmohan Tripathi, S/o JN Tripathi, age about 30 years, R/o Tripathi Traveliers, Kadambari Nagar, District - Durg (CG) (iVSini Bus Owner) 3. The New india Insurance Company Ltd., In front of Power House, Bhiiai, District Durg (CG) (insurance Company) Mlsc, 173 Qt^MototVehictesAct Present: Shri Jltendra Gupta, counsei for the appeiiant. None for respondent No.1 though served. Smt. Vasudha Mishra, counse! for respondent No.2. Shri Sudhlr Agrawa!, counsel for respondent No.3. ^ s^^:-" '::j i '%. ^y ^^^^;"" t r The foilowing order of the Court was by CJ. Appeilant - Rohit Deshmukh is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Ninth Additlona! Votor Accident Clalms Tribunai, Durg (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 31.07.2004, passed in Ciaim Case No.168/2004. 2) As against the compensatlon of Rs.4,93,000/- claimed by the appeliant/c-iaimant by fiiing a ciaim petition under Section 1 66 of the MoiQr Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accldent on 12.09.2002, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensatlon aiong with interest @ 6% per snnum from the date of fiilng of the ciaim petition ti!l the date of actua! payment. 3) Shri Jitendra Gupta; iearned counse! for the appeiiant vehemenfiy argued that t'ne Tribunal has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.5,000/- only though the appeiianV c-iaimant sustained muitipie serious injuries Inciuding fractures in the motor accident resuiting in permanent disabiijty to the extent of 12%. 4) Shri Sudhir AgrawaL iearned counse! for respondent No.3 the New india insurance Company Limlted, on the other hand, supported the avi/ard and contended t'nat as the ciaimant could not that tha injuries said to have been sustained by hlm in the motor accident resuited In any permanent dlsabllity, the compensation of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the Tribunal Is jList and ^ L proper compensation jn the facts and circumstances of the present ca.se. 5) Smt. Vasudha Mishra, iearned counsel for respondent No.2, the owner of the offending vehicie Minibus a!so supported the award. 6) Though the appeliant/ claimant pleaded that he sustajned fracture of his right knee in the motor accident, no x-ray plate or x-ray report was produced before the Tribunal to establish the said fracture. For estabiishing the aileged permanent disabiiity to the extent of 12%,'on!y a photocopy of the disabllity certificate was produced before the Tribunai. For the reasons best kno'A/n to the c-faimant, the originai of the disability certificate was neither produced nor got proved before the Tribunai. The claimant in his evldence before the Tribuna! admitted that he did not flie any bills and vouchers before the Tribuna! for estabiishing the expenditure said to have been incurred by hjm on his treatment. 7) in thls view of t'ne matter, we do not find any scope for enhancement of thecompensatlon awarded bythe Tribunal. 8) The appeal fiied by ths appeJiant/ ciaimant for enhancement of^the compensation, therefore .Is Siabie to.be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 9) No order as to costs. ,= Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- ;R.N.Chandrakar Judge .J. nimmi