^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Miscellaneous Appeal No.554 of 2003 © APPELLANT/: (Claimant) RESPONDENTS/: (Non-claimants) Dujram, S/o Ramji, age about 26 years, R/o Village Parastarai, Thana Arjuni, Tah. & Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) Versus 1. Pushkar, S/o Shyamlal Sahu,aged about 18 years, R/o Vill. Parastarai, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 2. Sumitra Bai, W/o Shyamlal Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o Vill. Parastarai, Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 3. Jagatram, S/o Johanram Sahu, R/o Vill. Potiyadili, Tah. & Distt. Dhamtari (C.G.) 4. United India Insurance Company Limited, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) {Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act} Present: Mr. Sunil Sahu, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.4. Sinflle Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma. J ORAL ORDER (18-6-2009) 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 , against the award dated 13-11-2002 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhamtari in Claim Case No.473/2002. 2. The award is challenged on the ground of insufficiency. 3. According to the case of the appellant, the appellant was travellirig in tractor No.MP-23/GA-2770, which was not insured, and he fell down and received injury. The appellant was treated by the doctor and on the basis of his medical report another doctor namely Dr. V.K. Pandey issued disability certificate of 40% on the ground that the bones fractured were not correctly recovered and joined. After appreciating the evidence and taking into consideration the facts learned Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs.20,896/- towards the cost of treatment, Rs.2,000/- towards pain & mental agony and also awarded interest at the rate of 8.5% from the date of filing of the claim petition i.e. 12-5-99 till its realization. ^ 4. I have heard learned counsel for theparties and perused the impugned award. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned Claims Tribunal has awarded the amount of medical expenses and also Rs.2,000/- for pain & suffering, but has not awarded any amount to the appellant for his future suffering. The Court below has not considered the case of disability of the appellant. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.4 opposed the appeal and submitted that the Couri: below has rightly awarded compensation to the appellant. 7. For the reasons best known to the appellant, the appellant has not examined the doctor who has treated him, but has examined the doctor who has issued the disability certificate on the basis of the record of medical treatment shown by the appellant to him which shows that the broken bones were wrongly joined. It appears that the appellant was not properly treated by the treating doctor. In absence of any evidence of the treating doctor it is difficult to hold that the appellant is disabled up to 40% as a result ofthe accident in question. Consequently, I do not find any scope for interference in the award impugned. ' The appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. ^ Soma Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge