1 2025:CGHC:48960 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MAC No. 640 of 2019  Sameram S/o Najru Sahu Aged About 40 Years R/o Village - Muswadih, Police Station And Tahsil - Saja District Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1. Mahadev Fulmali (Bankar) S/o Govind Fulmali, Aged About 32 Years R/o Nandkumar Bouudh House, Vaishali Nagar, Kamal Chowk, Nagpur, Police Station - Panchpaawali, Tahsil And District Nagpur M.H. ( Driver ), District : Nagpur, Maharashtra 2. Jaspal Singh Dhoot S/o Gurubakhs Singh Dhut, R/o Gr Road, Tatibandh, Raipur Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Dhowa Fast Carrier, Tekanaka, Kamthi Road, Nagpur, Tahsil And District Nagpur ( M.H.) (Owner), District : Nagpur, Maharashtra 3. The Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Branch Nagpur, 10 - Ramdas Peth Vardha Road, Nagar (M.H.) (Insurer ), District : Nagpur, Maharashtra ... Respondent(s) For Appellant/Claimant : Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate holding the brief of Mr. Rishikant Mahobia, Advocate For Respondent No. 3/ : Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate Insurance company For Respondents No. 1 & 2 : None. Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 24. 09.2025 1. The claimant/appellant has filed this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Accident Act for enhancement of compensation against an award passed by the First Additional Tribunal to the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg passed in Claim Case No. 390/2017 dated 15.11.2018, whereby the learned Tribunal has passed an award to the tune of Rs. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.09.26 14:47:03 +0530 2 23,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of accident till its realization. 2. Mr. Divyanand Patel, Advocate would submit that on account of accident, which occurred on 21.04.2001, the appellant sustained grievous injuries over hand, shoulder, finger and he became temporarily disabled. He would further submit that claimant filed a claim case claiming therein compensation to the tune of Rs. 16,50,000/-, but the learned Tribunal passed an award to the tune of Rs. 23,000/-. He would also submit that the learned Tribunal has not considered the medical documents including temporary disability certificate while assessing compensation. He would pray to enhance the amount of award. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Hanuman Prasad Agrawal, Advocate would submit that the learned Tribunal has passed just and proper award. He would contend that no document was produced by the appellant before the learned Tribunal with regard to period of hospitalization, but the learned Tribunal granted a sum of Rs. 6,000/- for loss of earning for period of two months. He would contend that the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 5,000/- against medical expenses and Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering and special diet. He would also submit that the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1400/- for attendant. He would submit that the appellant failed to examine the treating Doctor or the member of the Medical Board which issued the temporary disability certificate, therefore, the medical documents and the temporary disability certificate cannot be considered while assessing the compensation. He would contend that the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 4. I have learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the record. 5. Perusal of the record would show that in the accident, the appellant 3 sustained injuries over shoulder, hand and finger. The petitioner failed to submit documents to establish that he remained hospitalized for considerable period. The learned Tribunal has honoured the medical bills submitted by the appellant to the tune of Rs. 5,000/-. In absence of relevant documents, the learned Tribunal has granted sum of Rs. 6,000/- on head of loss of earning for period of two months. However, the learned Tribunal has awarded sum of Rs. 10,000/- for pain and suffering and special diet. The learned Tribunal further awarded the sum of Rs. 1400/- on the head of conveyance. It is not in dispute that the appellant failed to examine the treating Doctor or the member of Medical Board which issued temporary disability certificate to prove extent of disability. 6. Considering the above-discussed facts, in my opinion, no case is made out for interference. Accordingly, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant