r ^ 'ils^a^ OSiiI^U M. [C! (7 Ciaimant ^ Akash Medhi S/o Bhaskar Rao Medhi, aged about 28 years, Occupation - Mechanic, Auto Cent.er, R/o - Civii Llne, Gariyaband, Tehsii Gariyaband, District- Raipur /s^ rt \ {'^.'^.} Versus rtfnt' ifiueiii Non-c!aimants 1. Roshan Lal Chandravanshi, aged about -35 years, S/o Chandravanshi, OccuDation - Go\'t. Ser/ice D/r r), R/'o Village ^airlal, Poilce Station ihatapara, District - Raipur /r^ ^o.' \ 2. The United India Insurance Compsny Limited, Branch Office Through Divisiona! Manager Divisiona! Office Krishna CompSex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur District Ralpur (G.G.) 3. Alok Medhl S/o BhasRar Rao Medhi, R/o Civil Line, Garivaband. Tehsil- Gariyaband, District - Raipur 'U.U.) 4. Ths United India Insurance Company Limited; Through Divisionai manager DivJsional Office Krishna Complex, Kutchery Chowk, Raipur District-Raipur(C.G.) MifiCF! I &NFfli'fi &PP! iitftS'^-?'^''&m !i«=&=..i"*6,i ^ iisnn'ituB''<iBF'43ii' ^"t.E" ST Ai !l ^ Va—i: •t^ ^ "c"^ 3 ••s^' .siy -f-.-'i" eare Shri Govind Dewanga, counseS appears on Shsvendu Pandya, counsel for the appefiant. None for respondent No. 1 and 2. Shri Arun Shukia, counsel fof' respondent No. 3. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsei for resoondent No.4. behatf of S'nri H n ^— '?', ^^\ ^. 4) (Passed on 27th June, 2011) The appellant Akash Medhi is seeking enhancement of the compensafion awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.04.2007, passed in ciaim case No. 80/2006.' /\ C~> •^-rF^/'S ^?I^(fn^' ^^i^l ^-^^^V^ ^Vj?^?";^1 /~5^'^/^! ^- ^S'? ^F?!^ ~^ 4 ^ ^f^i^ / /*^ ? •T'; ^^V^/^ i?to-J ?*i^ J ^ l^i ^*^ RS 8gSIHSr IHS CCH1pSfiS8TiOH OT K3.//I SjUUU/- Ciaim©Q Dy TH£ ippeiianf/claimant by fiiing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the iViotor Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.99,621/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from 22.06.2004 till the date of actuai payment. Shri Govind Dewangan, iearned counsei for the appellant vehernentiy argued that t'ne Tribunai has erred in avi/arding !ow compensation of Rs.99,621;'- only, though the appelSanfc'ciaimant sustained serious injuries including fractures on right arm and right forearm in the motor accident resuiting in perrnanent s'-.S'E-i ^-. •<rf- ,4 ^ aisa&ility to-tiie extent ot 90%. Per contra, Shri Dashrath Gupta, leamed counse! for respondent No.4 th.s United india Insurance Company supported the award and contended that as the ciaimant could not estabiish tSie fact that the injuries sustained by hirn in the motor accident resuited in sny permanent disabijity, the compensation of Rs.99,621/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. Shri' Arun Shukla, learnea' counsei for respondent No.3 also supDorted the av/ard. u ri^^-¥.i -t^;i^J.^^ ,tl^GS-^^T^^;frrl^^^'^t^^.'-Lt'.!^-rt^^^^ e *?'' f.\ 13 R'I°/ 4 n' •\J Before the Tribunal, the claimant examined two witnesses including himself (AW/1 Akas'n Medhi and AVV/2 Dr. G.S. Bacchu) in support of his ciaim. For the reasons best known to the sppellant/ciairnant, no treating doctor was exarnined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the Injuries said to have been sustained by him in the motor accident. The question whether the medica! certlficate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal without examining the treating Doctor, vv'ho examined the claimant, can be reiied upon as substantive evidence for the assessment of the compensation in the present case.. Doctor Shri G.S. Bacchu (AVW2) categoricaily stated that on 02.01.2004 claimanfc'appellant Akash Medhi came before the medica! board for disability certificate. He has also stated that right hand ofthe Akash Medhi was fully paralyzed due to paradia! plexus injury. Board has issued disability certificate to the extent of 90%. He has signed photocopy of certificate Ex.P-9 as part A to A. He has admitted in his cross-examination that it is not menfioned in the Ex.P-9 that how 90% disability has been determined. He has aiso admitted that he has not treated ths claimant Akash Medhi. 9) Appeiiant Akash Medhl (AW/1) deposed that he has not producs the document relatina So neuroloaist. On perusal of Ex.P-9, it is clearthat there is no mention about the reason asslgned for 90% permanent disability. It is also olear that the date of accident vvas 09.06.2003 whereas {he disability certificate issued on 02.01.2004, much later than six months. X-ray report Ex. P-7 clearly shows 'injur^ on right arrn & riyht forearm and there is no mention about any other fractures. Thus, the disabiiity certificate (Ex. P-9) issued by the medica! board shown to be 90% cannot be reiied upon. ^ \ C<— -5-i. ! i/ r^i u foregolng reasons, 1 do not find any enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. y'-v ^s'^: 1'~1\ r^) The appeai, filed b'y the appellant/ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be disrnissed and is herebv dismissed. 13) No order as to costs. at.'/" •N, Chandr: judge 1