IH OUT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR onle n lllp Raoslaheb D A c No 169 ofzobs Pyare La! lrmaar Slo Budhu am, aged about 3 years R/o VII R 5 I Rajankota Post Panduk Dlst Raipur (CG) Ves Appellants Claimants esponents ’Ndh-applicat hn A L Slngnaul counsel for the appellant one appears for respondents No 1 & 2 hn Ajay Mlshra counsel for respondent N 3 S o OR GRK (Passed on 23.09.2008) Te appeal is'heard nnallystoday. T l" arm ease 6/ (3) The claimant had suffered compound fracture of nltt Trbla an Fibula bones due to an accident which occurred on 24 10 2004 Th Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs 1 24 81 4I- along With interest % per annum from the date of aplication till realization ‘ 4 he appellant/claimant did not examine the Doctor who treate im afer the accident The discharge certiticate (Ex Pa?) med by the (2) his is a eclaimant's appeal for enhanoement of compensation awarded by lX‘" Additional Motor‘ Accidents Claims Tribuna (henceforth the ‘Tnbunal) Ralpur on 2502 2006 In ds No 02005 i i , i HG CR Snle Benc \ ig h: H’b Sh D eshmukh J M Nik a t rsu Dulesh Ven'na Slo Klshan Verma, R/o Bagadalpara PS Nawapar Dlstt Ralur Smt Rita dew Slngh Thakur Wlo rvmd Singh Thakur R/o B- Gayatn Vihar Purena Raupu The New Insurance Co Ltd By DMs'onal Manager, Kachah aIlRoad Ralpur Miscellaneous aggeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle $3 1 994 Present: a, p - A r an J Rd , ns s N AL EE h g d e @/ 9 p ¢ () T d h t shs tht on 26 11 2004 t itin of t it hd claimant ow a he condo he ciéman a, Improved Another cerhflcate dated 15 12 2004 of Dr Satush Hame (Ex P-20) has been med which shows that CaHus formahon had taken place m the lower third shafw of right tibia and nght fibuia wnh‘rflxatgon, and there was no evidence of loosening The dnly evidence ied by the claimant is that of Dr Surendra Shukla AWL2 and Sandeep Sahu AW-3 Dr Surendra Shukla AW-2 has admitted that he has treated the a claimant for the frst time on 31.1.2005 and at that point of timerthe; ’ claimant had not shown to him any papers relating to'treatment taken by him after the date of accident He further stated mat when he saw the claimant on 31 1 2005 his bones had not united In his testimony; ,1 he has also not stated as to which bones were fractured Dr Sandeep I Sahu AW-3 has testitied that he had given txeatment to the claimant ‘ from105.08.2005. Thusythe possibility that due to meanegligenceofthe claimant, therbone's of the right Tibia and Fibuia which had united as ” pet reportdated 15.12.2004 gottractured’cannot be‘ miéd out, (5) Vln this view of the matter, no casebr enhancement-10f compensation is made out. The appeal b‘eingideVOid of any meritiis ‘ dismissed \ SM Judge Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh j] l . / I