^ Respondents Non-ctaimanf HIGH COURT OF GHHATTiSGARH AT B8LASPUR Sitiflle Bench : HQrs'NeShrl DilsBf^iosahebDeshfysukh, J. M.A. (C.tNo.1398/2007 Appellant Suresh Kumar S/o Sugan Chand, By Giajmant Caste Sanchati, agsd about 40 years, . R/o Viliage Nagari, Tahsil Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Versus 1, Hemant @ Thakur 8/0 Kaviiash Singh Dhruv, aged about 40 years, R/o Viilage and Post Ghutkel, T^hsii Nagri, Distriot Dhamtari (C.G.5 (Driver bf the Vefiicle No.C.G.-05-B- 1463) i ' . , 2. BodhanSingh, S/o Shri Asharam Thakur, R/o Dhamtari Road, Dihipara, Nagri, , District Dhamtari (C.©.) (Owner of the Vehide No.C.G.-Q5-B- 1463) ; 3. Branch Manager, The priental Insurance Company Limited,i Balak '. Chowk, Dhamtari, Tahsii grid Distrid Dhamtari (CG)1 :1" ..:,1;"..1 • 1;1;.' ..'.. (Ihsurer of the Vehicle No.C.G.-05-B- 1463) ; . . } • . • •'.• . • Miscejlaneoys Appeal ynder Secflon 173 <rf thelMotorVehJcles Act. Present : - Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel forthe appeilant. . None appears on behalf of respbndent No.1. Shri Vimiesh Bajpai, counsei forfespondent No^.2, Shri Sudhir Agrawai, counsei for respondent N6.3. ORALORDER (Passed on this 2ncl day pfSeptember, 2<X%) Heard finally. iyy». (2) This is a ctaimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation. The . Additiona! Motor Accidents Claims Tribunat, Dhamtari (henceforth "the Tribunar) has in CtaimCaseNo.12/2006 on dated 26-10-2007 awarded compensation of Rs.25,OOO/- to the appeilanVclaimant. (3) Brief facts are thaton 05-09-2005, the appeitant/claimant was trave in a Tata Spacio Taxi bearing R^istration No.C.G.-05-B/1463 driven by "'r w- e^ respondent No.1, owned by respondeht No.2 and insured by respondent No,3. The taxi turned turtle. The claimant suffered grievous injury in the second and third metacarpal bone of the ieft palm as also the fraoture of middle fjnger. Besides his own testimony, the appellant/ctaimant examined Dr. V. K. Pandey, A.W.2 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.25,000/-. (4) Having heard rival submissions, 1 am of the considered opinion that this appeal has no merit. The cash memos Ex. P-14to P-18 and P-24to P-26 show thename ofthetreatingdoctoras Rajesh Patei. No prescription of Doctor Rajesh Patet was fited bythe claimant before the Tribunal. Doctor Rajesh Patel was also not ex^mined. The prescription Ex.P-19 to P-21 is byDoctor R. K. Thakur, but the ciaimant did not examine DoctorR. K.Thakur. Duejto the non examination of Doctor R. K.Thakur and Doctor Rajesh Patel, the insurer was deprived of a opportunity to cross-examine these witnesses and to test the veracity ofthe cash memos for medidne purchased. In this view of the matter, the biiis for prescription filed by the claimant arouse suspicion. Doctor V. K. Pandey, the sote witness examined by the olaimant has stated th.at although theQlaimant had, for the first time, come to him for treatment on 06-09-2005, he did not treat him because there was lot of swelting and time was required for fixation of the bone. Doctor V. K. Pandey, A.W.2 turther admitted that he did not takeany X-Ray on 20-11-2006 when he issued the disability certificate. He further admitt^l that in Dhamtari, a medical board has been constitufed which jssues the disabitity certificate. DoctorV. K. Pandey has furtheradmitted that he woutd not remember the date of the X-Ray ptate which the claimant had shown to him. The photograph ofthe ieft palm in the disability oertificate Ex.P.30 also does not show anycrush injury. The ctaimant admitted that he was running a shopof fertilizers, seeds and insectteides in the same manner as he used to do before the accident. In para-11; he has also admitted thatexcept the two fingers of the ^ft hand, he had fully recovered. Re aiso admitted that he was not in a position to state •t:i X / -3' t^ Tumane whether after the accident, there has been loss of earning capacity in the shop. Doctor V. K. Pandey,A.W.2 has also acimitted in para 7 that extent of disability mentioned by him in the certificate Ex.P-30 relates oniy to the fingers pf the left hand. (5) Having considered the evidence led by the appellant/claimant in its entirety, 1 am of the considered opinion that in view ofthe non-examination ofthe treating doctors and the suspicious nature ofthe bills for medicine purchased as also the fact that due to the acoident, there has been no loss of earning for the VLO claimant ^te ground for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunat is made out. (6) In the result, the appeal has no merit and is accordingiy dismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^ ^' <-:z ^