OM PRAKASH Vs. CHHUNILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of compensation under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The Tribunal has awarded only a compensation of Rs. 5,100.00 for a simple injury suffered by the claimant. It is the submission of the claimant that he received fracture in the hand as well as in the neck and also one fracture in the ring finger of left hand. On the basis of Ex. P/4, which is M.L.C. report, the Tribunal has not accepted that it is a case of fracture because in M.L.C. report (Ex. P/4) it has not been mentioned that he received any fracture. The claimant has also not produced any treatment papers. The incident took place on 24.12.1997. He produced one disability certificate of date 15.10.1999 for these injuries but there is no other evidence on record to accept this contention of the claimant that he received any fracture. In other treatment papers also it has not been mentioned that the claimant suffered any fracture. The claimant has also not produced any X-ray report. Dr. Surendra Kumar Lunawat is only a doctor of giving certificate of disability, he is not the treating doctor. The Tribunal has also not accepted the evidence of Dr. Lunawat as reliable. The claimant has produced only three bills for purchase of medicines. Ex. P/3 is of date 30.12.1997 for a sum of Rs. 18.00; Ex. P/1 is of date 26.2.1998 for a sum of Rs. 69.00; and Ex. P/2, without any date, is for Rs. 169.00. Therefore, it appears that on the date of accident i.e. 23.12.1997 he has not purchased any medicines and nor he remained hospitalised. In the absence of any reliable evidence on record about the fracture or about the treatment given to the claimant, the Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs. 5,100.00 for simple injury. The claimant has also produced his photograph which was taken at the time of accident. From this photograph it is clear that he has not received any injury in any of the fingers of any hand nor in the neck. The learned Counsel for the claimant could not satisfied me that there is any other evidence on record which was not considered by the Tribunal, thus no case is made out for enhancement of any compensation.

(2.) CLAIMANT has filed one I.A. No. 620/2003, an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code, and along with this application has produced one prescription from Saluja Orthopaedic and Physiotherapy Clinic, Indore dated 24.12.1997.1 have perused the prescription and also the pleadings and evidence on record, the claimant has not mentioned this fact in the claim petition that the claimant was treated in Saluja Orthopaedic Clinic. The claimant has also not deposed this fact in his examination-in-chief that he was ever treated in the said clinic. Therefore, this document is not helpful at this stage as it appears to be an after-thought. Accordingly this application also has no merits and is dismissed.