2-\ HJGHC_OURT_OF CHHATTiSGARH: BILASPUR ^ Single Beiich: Hon'bte Shri DIIip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Respondents Nori-appiicarsts M.A.C.No. 638 of 2007 AppeSiants : Apun,'a Kumar Ghosh, S/o A.K. Ghosh, CSaimants aged about 39 years, R/o M.I.G. Coiony, in front, 20 Bharat Mata School^ Tatibandh, Thana Amanaka Raipur, Tah & Distt Raipur (CG) Versus 1. Rahmanuddin, S/o Asahaduddin Muslman By: Shri Durga Still traders Kumhari, Pro. Jayprakash Goyal, S/o Pradhudya! Goyai, Gopai Colony, Road Kumhari, Thana Kumhari, DisttDurg (CG) 2. Shr? Durga Stiiis Traders, Pro. Jaya Prakash Goyai, S/o Prabhudyal goyal, R/o Gopal Coiony, Road Kumhari, Thana KumharL Distt. Durg (CG) 3. The Orient 'insurance Co. Ltd. through Divissonal Manager, Divisionai Office, Kachhari Chouk, Jai! Road; Raipur Distt Raipur (CG) IVjjsceEIarieoys appeal under Sectlon 173 ofthe IViotor VehideAct,_1994 Present: Shri A.L Singroul, counsel for the appetlant. Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, counsel for respondents No.1 & 2. Shri Sudhir Agrawa!, counsel fqr respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passedon 06.12.2008') This is a claimant's appeai for enhancement of compensation of Rs.8,588/- awarded by the 9 Additiona! Motor Accidents Ciaims Tribuna! (henceforth the Tribunal'), Raipur in clajms case Nc;39/2006 dated 28.02.2007. (2) Brief facts are that the claimants had, on 19.7.2003 at about 12.45 p.m., sustained grievous injuries due to an accident causea' by the respondent No.1, 'who was.dnvjng the vehicie No.CG/07/ZD~5877. The said vehicte was ovvned by the respondent No.2 and insured by the respondent No.3 on the date of acosdent. The Tribunal has av^/arded compensation of Rs.8,588/- by the irnpugned award. (3) Learned. oounse! for the appeilant has argued that the ciairnant had suffered fracture in th^ 3rd, 4th and 5th Metacorpa! bone of the ieft hand and has proved the factum ofSystaining 27% permanent djsability In the !eft uppe^ Eimb by exarning Dr::G.S. Bacch^u (AW-3). Reiiance was placed on Rajesh Kumaralias Raiu Vs. Yudhvir Slnah & Another2QQ8 AIR SCW 3967. On the other hand, Shri .^Tss^ ^ ^T^ \ M.P.S. Bhatia, counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 & 2 and Shri Sudhir Agrav^al, counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 have argued in support of the impugned award. (4) Having considered the rival submissions, 1 have perused the record. The accident had occurred on 19.07.2003. Injurv' report (Ex. P-7) does not reveai that the claimant had sustained any gnevous injury. On the other hand, it mentions that the claimant had narrated the history/ of undergoing treatment from sorne Orthopedic Speciaiist. The ciaimant did not examine the treating doctor and also did not examine Dr Kedar Agrawai, who had sssued x-ray report (Ex. P-7). Although the x-ray p!ate Ex. P-17 appears to have been taken at a Government Hospital yet, report of the Orthopedic Speclaiist v^as not fiied aiong v^ith the x-ray pjate. The Tribunal has disbelieved the documents Ex.P-14,15 and 16 since Dr. Jaspa! Jaswani AW-2, who was examined by the ciaimant, had stated on oath that he did not charge anythlng from the claimant for the treatment. Dr. G.S. Bacchhu AW-3 has stated on oath that the ciaimant had visited him for the first time on 67.2005 i.e. after the expin/ of aimost two years from the date of accident for obtaining a disabiilty certjflcate. Since the medical examination report of the ciaimant does not show any grievous injury suffered by the ciaimant and shows that the claimant was aiready undergoing treatment from some Orthopedic Specialist on the date of accident and since the treating Doctor has not been examine'd, it reafly appears doubtful whether the disability certificate issued by Dr G.S. Bacchhu AW-3 has any nexus wsth the injury sustained by the claimant due to the acciQ'ent. So far as the receipt issued by Dr. Jaspa! Jaswani AVV-2 for Rs.4,200/- from the ciaimant js concerned, it is also falsified by the statement on oath of Dr. Jaspal Jaswani AW-2 that he did not charge an^hing from the ciaimant for the treatment (5) I am of the considered opinion that the clalmant has failed to estabiish that the disabiiity sustained by him and certified by Dr. G.S. Bacchhu AW-3 on 6.7.2005 had anyfnexus with the inju^y sustained by the claimant 'due to the accident that had occurred on 19.7.2003. (6) In this viev^ of the matter, no case for enhancement of compensation avv/arded-by the Tribunal is made out. The appeai is devojd of merit and Is accordingly djsmissed. \ Pnya Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge •\