A'P-^ HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BELASPUR DIVIS60N BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. EVilsc. ADpeaS (C) No. 577 of 2009 APPELLANT Ciaimant before the Tribunal RESPONDENTS NON-APPL1CANTS Before the Tribunai •\ Ramvilash Yadav, S/o. Shri Jagturam Yadav, aged about 32 years, R/o Village and Post Barhapur, P.S. and Tahsii Dhamda Distt. Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. Nakul Sahu, S/o Bhuwan Sahu, R/o Chlchola, 1 P.S. Kairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (DriveroftheVehlcle) 2. Krishna Kumar Yadsv, S/o Sitaram Yadav,| R/o 789 M.P. Housing Board Colony, Gudiyari Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of the Vehicle) 3.. Branch Manager, Nationai Insurance Company Ltd., Akash Ganga, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil & Dlstt. Durg (C.G.) (Insurer of the Vehlcie) Poiicy No> 320800/31/05/6300Q0474 Valid from 08-02-2006 to 07-02-2007. 4. Smt. Ganga Devi Pandey, W/o Late Shri Deshraj Pandey, R/o of C/o Dr. P.N. Mishra, Ra] Famity, Khairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.)- IVIISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVeHICLESACt;1988 Present: Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant. ~^7 ORDER (27th ApriS, 2009) Bli' c The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Shrl Jitendra Gupta, learned counsei for the appellant is heard on I.A. No. 01/2009, an application for condonation of deiay infiling the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appeliant and the grounds taken in the appiication for condonation of deiay, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing suffid'ent cause for the delay in filing the appeaf. 3) !.A. No. 01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appeiSant is heard on admission. 5) Appeliant Ramvilash Yadav is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Eighth Additional Motor Accident Clalms Tribunai, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award datedt 6.09.2008, passed in Claim Case No.83/2006. 6) As against the compensatjon of Rs.4,05,000/-, claimed by the appellanV claimant by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 25.10.2006, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.12,645/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum. 7) Shri Jitendra Gupta, iearned counsej for the appeilant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.12,645/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant/ ciaimant in the motor accident. 8) For the reasons best known to the appeliant / claimant neither any medicai certificate was produced nor any doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature ofthe injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanV claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 9) In this state of evidence, we do not find any fault in the approach of the Tribunai in treating the injuries sustained by the appellant/ claimant as simpie in nature and awarding compensation of Rs.12,645/- for simple injuries. 10) We, therefore, d6 not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11) The appeal fiied by the appeliant/ clalmant for enhaneement of the compensation, therefore, is Siabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge nsmmi