^ •^ HI6H COURT OF JUDIC^TURE CHHATTIS^ftH DIVISION BENCH BILASPUR CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI H.L. OATTU. CJ & HON'BLE 5HRI V.|C. SHMVASTAVA, J. AAISC. /UVEAL O) N0. 309 of 2007 APP&LANT Mohommflri Akram, Age - 39 years, 5/o Late • Mohcttnmad Kasam, R/o Chandni Chowk, Nehruncyar, Tdh^il Abistrict, Raipur (C6) Versus RESPONbB^TS 1) Salikram Sahu, Age-45 years, S/o 6irdh<ri Sdiu, Occupation - briver of Minj Bus, R/o Lakhencgw, Rdpur, TohsilA bistrict, Raipur (C©) 2) Tomeshwari Verma, W/o Lat® - MC Verma. R/o Quarter No.126, Sector - 2, Shankar Ncqar, ftoipir, Tahsil A bistrict Raipur *3) The new India Insuronce Company Limited, Branch Office No.2. Tlirou^i &jvisional Manager, Disvisionol Office - RM Bujlding, b<yrang Morket, Raipur Tahsil A District Raipur (C6) PresCTt : Shri AS Iqbol, counsel for the appelJmt. None for the respondents. ORAL Oft&S^ (Possed on 13th March, 2007) Jhe following orai order of the Court was passed by Vyay Kumar Shrwastava, J. ^'^ ^ Tnis \s an appeal filed under Seetion 173 of the Motor Vehicie Act 1988 (henceforth "the Act") for enhancement of compensation, a9ainst the award dated 29.11.2006, passed by XIth Additional Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, (FTC), Raipur (C6) (henceforth "the Tribunal") in claim case No.94/2006, whereby compensation of Rs.29,808/- has been aworded in fwour of the appellant. 2) Briefly stated facts are that on 18.06.2005 when the appellant was going to Nawapara Rcyim on a minibus bearing r^istrotion No.C©-04-ZA-0148 (for short 'the vehicle'), which was driven by respondent No.l in a rash and ne9ligent manner, the vehicle turned turtle, resultantly the appellant sustained injuries. AppeJlant filed an application under Section 166 of the <Act for 9rant of compensation against respondents who are driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. 3) Respondents contested the claim. The Tribunal after assessin9 evidence on record, allowed compensation(as below : (a) Medical expenses (b) Pdn and suffering (c) Loss of income (d) Specialdiet (e) Attendont Qnd transport Total Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,CX30/- Rs.9,808/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.5,000/- Rs.29.808/- 4) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that appellant was not allowed just and proper compensation. 4) We have gone throu9h the award- No medical evidence has been adduced by the appeltont before the Tribunal; even there is no document to suppb^t that appellant suffered serious injuries or was admitted in any hospital. burin9 the course of arguments appellant ft) 3?Tc draw our attention towards three documents annexed alon9 with the appeai to show the injuries sustained by the appellant. On perusal of those documents, it is manifest that one of them is a report issued by Ruprefa X-Ray & Sonography Centre, Rdpur, which is related to a child, a9ed 12 years, definitely this documents is not the report of appeliant, who is cged 31 years, another report dated 24.04.2006 i.e- neor about 10 months later of the accident; this document also does not show any fracture or serious injury- On& another document has also been annexed, which has been obtained after four days from the date of accident/ but in absence of x-ray report has no force to support any fracture. Therefore, in view of such contradictory documents no one can accept that appellant sustoined ony 9rievous iryuries, even otherwise these documents are not proved or admitted documents havin9 force of legal evidence. 5) Even in absence of medical evidence, the Tribunal allowed compensation on various heods as stated above, it appears that sympathy olone compelled the Tribuncil to allow such a compensatjon. We are unable to accept that the compensation owarded to the appellant is notjust or not proper. 6) In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed in iimine. No costs. Sd/- ChiefJustice \ Sd/- V.K. Shrivastava Judge