mf—EH €€3URT QF CHHKE’TISGARH AT giiuASmMQ y ‘ § MEMORI‘ANDQM OF APPEAL UNQER SECTEQN W3 OF THE MRTETGR VEE‘IECLES ACT, Present: Shri H.S. Patel, counse! hr the appeuant. Shri Dashrath Gupta, cgunsel for respondent No.3. gamma (1am February, 24m) Th3 fouewing order of the Court was, passed by Rageev $upta, GJ. mV§$iC¥N QENCH {$GWXM: H€3N$EL§ SHRé Fm’JEEV GUPTA, ¢$n HON’%§_E $HR§ $UNIL KUMAR SWHA, J. Mix. Agmai Ne. $9?” 0% 2W3. y § ggneiQm Sewa Ram Sahu, Son of Kejuial ‘ C§a§mam Sahu, agad abaut 3G years, resident “" of viliage Bhathagaen, Tehsi! and D§sLrict RaEpuy (CG). a 3§E$€Si§$ §€iesgamihénts Nan-appiicants 1‘ Shriram Yadav, son of Ram Bachhan Yadav, aged abeut 25 years; reSident‘of vinage Meerpur; District Azamgarh (UP). 2. Hargurbachan Singh; sen of moi known, reaiden‘t of 237, Neiaji Coiony, Kcikata (WE) Kolkata—QG (W3). 3. Manager, Naiiona? msurance Co. Division-7, (Sambagh-7) Baok House-9, Shekspeer Sharni, Kalkata-Wa (W8). R) Appenant — Sewa Ram Sau h is seeking eancement nh of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 3 e 0.08.2002, passd in Ciaim Case No.176i1997. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.6,14,000!— claimed by the appellanticlaant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 im of the Motor Vehlclee Act, for the injuris sustained by him; the “damage caused to his bullock-cart; and the death of bullock, in the motor accident on 21 33.1994, the Tribunal warded a total sum of a a Rs.17,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the award till the date of actual payment. 3) The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence led before it though found that the claimant has established that his bullock died in the motor accident and the bullock—cart was damaged, but he could not establish the tact that he also sustained - iniuries in the motor accident. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a sum of Rs.17,000/— for the death of his buttock and damage to the builock-cart, which was claimed by the claimant in the ciaim petition. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.17,000!'— @90/0 per annum from the date of award tilt the date of the actual' payment. 4) Shri H.S. Patel, learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in holding that the claimant couid not establish the fact that he also sustained injuries in e @ a ‘ the motor accident and in awarding {ow compEnsation of Rs.17;OOG/- oniy. 5) Shri Dashrath-Gupta, ieamed counsel for respondent No.3 Naiionai ansurance Company Limited, on the other hand, supported in‘e award and contended that ae the claimant himself oiaimed compensahon of Rs.17;GGO/‘ oniy for fhe death of his buiiook and damage ,to‘the buiiock-oaijr in the motor accident, there is no scope for V eny enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 6) So far as the compensation of Rs‘17,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the oiaima’nt’s bullock and damage to the buttock—cart in the motor accident is concerned, the ciaimant cannot have any legitimate grievance as he himself in his elaim petition claimed compensation of Rs.17,000/'— only in that behalf. ?) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the l compensation awarded by the Tribunal for the death of the ciaimant’s buttock and damage to the bullock—Gait, in the motor accident 8) So far as the compensation claimed by the claimant for the injuries said to have been sustained by hlrn in the motor accident is concerned, admittedly; no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to estabiish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the claimant ih the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resoited in any permanent disability. That apart, the medical certificates produced by the claimant before the Tribunal are iii “ i ex fade suspicious and the Tribunal has rightly discarded these {:ertificates for the cogent reasons speit out in paras 8, 9 and 10 of the impugned award. 9) For ihs foregoing reasons, the appeai fiied by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation is iiabie t0 be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. i0) No order as to costs? i u "nif t Sdl- ‘ i: ”\ chief Justice 1‘ t r ‘p subbu /s