^^ \"JY T5? "Ml<<lc><<, »Tfl<1'IS, Rlrtl^y •WWIT g^f^-^-.^-<^"-fc?-^5----^ 200-^, sn^yr wv (iprf^gqsT) 3]1^T ?il K-i (TSIT 311^1 sh+liqi ^?IIW ^lft^T 31I^T ;C.i Shri P.P. Sahu, Coul D.B: Hon'ble Shri Justil Hon'bte Shri Justi qiN^^Tl +1H<^' ^fe^ <[<1^r<. ^sifwTan^r Shekhar Sahu, Son of Shri Madan Sahu, aged about 18 years, Resident of Village Khamhariya, Police Station Pulgaon, Tahsii and District Durg (C.G.) Balvinder Singh, Son of Shri Ratan Singh, aged about 50 years, Resident ofShankar Nagar, Durg, Poltee Station Mohan Nagar, Tahsii and Distrtict Durg (C.G.) (DRIVER OF VEHiCLE) Santosh Khetan, Son of Shri B.N. Khetan, Resident of Kadamberi Nagar, Police Station Mohan Nagar, Durs (C.G.) (OVVNER OF VEHICLE> National insurance Company, Near Gill Complex, Station Road, Durg (C.G.) (INSURER OF VEHICLE BEARING NO.CG-04/ZD/7504, POLICY N0.320901/31/05/6700004212) Duration 20.12.2005 to 19.12.2006. 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act nsel for the appellant. :e L.C. Bhadoo, J & e Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. ••e^^ ~r V 1 -llC—78 3Ilt<T W R-ficb ^W 3TT^T ^i<^ 7EST '<11<<1<»)<<, 8iTDyi<S, Rji?iiyy<. Hl^dl **<|sb ..^.a.Cc!)..^...^.^0/0^ ^..........^..^..^........:...............^....^ 200 OT^?T 'f^sK (i^yi'syt) t^iTWHfer sii^r Heard on admission. The ciaimant - Shet Section 173 of the Motor \i compensation amount, beit passed by the Fifth Additio: (C.G.) in Claim Case after rejecting the ctaim of ti awarded Rs.19.500/- under under the head of pain ani special diet, Rs.2000/- und< thereby, in ali, an award to Shri Sahu argued th Dr. Akhilesh Yadav and permanent disabiiity has no| Having heard learn| perused the award. In para 14 and 16,| evidence and materia! claim petition. In para 14,| produced by the claimant accident. He was treated iri hospitai from 14/3/2006 t^ ticket, it is mentioned that I nail was fixed in it. Ex.P? lT>n[d'4li ^H<nf ^^^ Tf^R^R ^aiRiHsn^r [lar Sahu has preferred this appeai under ihicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the aggrieved by the award dated 22/8/2007 |al Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg !16/2007, whereby, the iearned Tribuna! [e claimant regarding permanent disability, |the head of medica! expenses, Rs.5000/- sufferings, Rs.2000/- under the head of |r the head of future medica! treatment and he tune of Rs.28,500/- has been passed. rt a medica! certificate has been given by produced on record, even then, the been believed. id counsel for the appellant, we have the learned Tribunal has scrutinize^ the prc|duced by the ciaimant in support of his the Tribunal has referred to the materia! ;hat he in fact sustained the injury in the Gayatri Hospital, Durg and he remained in 25/3/2006. In the papers and discharge le. left teg was operated on 16/3/2006 and 5, Ex.-P/S, Ex.-P/7 and Ex.-P/8 are the 7 e]!Ei'-f;a<itii, 3n^r^iTl?=iw ^SIT ^TI^T shHi'^ 3^ tlWW^ (if^WI^, fa«4|yy ^ ^,....^.A.^..ia.o./o^ ^ an^r •vw ('iffSyyst) ff) t^nwgfCT sii^r 3 +WI<-l4-( ^Wrtf if.fe^ Tfq^R ^'3fR]tT31I^T documents regarding treatfnent and operation of the claimant in Gayatri hospital, Durg, whi(|h has not been chalienged. Dr. Akhilesh Yadav, who was examined| as witness No.3 has stated that in fact there was a fracture of righi] femur bone and that was operated upon. The court believed the p4pers of Gayatri Hospital, in which, the treatment regarding left !eb was shown and did not believe the evidence of Dr. Akhiiesh sustained in the right leg an Soard, Durg gave perman^ ^adav to the extent that the injury was d was operated upon. The District Medical nt disability certificate Ex.P/33, in which, it is mentioned that there WE|S a fracture in the right femur bone. The Court uitimateiy reached tc| the conciusion that the papers of Gayatri Hospital, where the Ciaimajit was operated and took treatment, shows that his left leg was oper^ted, whereas, the certificate given by ths District Medical Board sho^'s that permanent disability up to 15% was in the right !eg. Therefo(e, on account of this contradiction, the certificate was disbelievedj Moreover, no doctor of the District Medica! Soard, who has given tl|ie certificate, was examined in order to estabiish the permanent di^ability and contents of the certificate. The Tribunal has p|rima facie disbelieved the certificate toeing not supported by any Djsctors' evidence and contradictory to the treatment received by the| claimant. This finding of the Tribunal has been arrived after scrutinyjof the material available on record. In view of the abov^, we do not find any iilegality or infirmity in t'ne judgment of the Tribijnal. The compensation amount awarded is /• -,-,,,,,-,^^,,^.,,,,^ u .1:. . r' VV^' r-<ta^.1-<<?" sn^sw W\* ^%fT3TT^T^HT^ N, 75^ -^WW^, VliS\W , (q01+fy HWrtl **11* /r)rt-f(:') -/Zfco/o^ WI. 200 ail^yr iigq? (li<!lfl«l<UT) ^^iTWHfer aii^r 'l just and reasonable. Ther^ the Tribunal. The appeal being d( is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Jildge <^i<i[(n<4li ^i^t^T ^f.'fe^ <P»i^i< ^afRpTsn^r is no reason to interfere with the finding of fcvoid of merits is tiable to be dismissed and Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge l^}t)/'^