^-f^—';^:Sss-. .•'.^"' ...-.-.l'", "^? f',^"*^ ^.'?& ^i.i.t.a;^'^ / o'' ^'..lc \^ ! U '<-10 ^^c n^i HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVJSIQN BENCH Coram HON'BLE SHRI RAJEE HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL 1 , GJ. & ilNHA, J. Misc. Appeal (Cl (PRt No.1807 of2008 Smt. Malti Bai, W/o. Prahlad Sen, aged about 20 years, R/o. Viilage Kuthrel, Police Station Pulgaon, Tehsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) 2. 4. Rakesh Kumar Nagpur, S/o. Punaram, aged about 25 years, R/o. Tata Line Kohka, Near Balmandir, Poliee Station Supeia, Tehsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) C.G.07-ZD/3983) Dilip Kumar Verma, S/o. Heeralal Verma, aged about 40 years, R/o. Uco Bank Jevra Sirasa Road. near Kohka Bhilai, Tahsit & Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Owner of the Tata Sumo No. C.G. 07-ZD/3983t The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Malviya Nagar, Durg Tahsil and Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Insurance Com. of the Tata Sumo No. C.G. 07-ZD/39831 Ram Duiare Tiwari, S/o. unknown, R/o. Tiwari Hote! Hospita!, Seotor Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsei for the appellant. (20th October, 2008) The foitowing order of the Court was passed by Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appeltant is heard on I.A. No.01/2008, an application for condonation of delay in flling the appeal. 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that ie eppellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in fillng the appeal. 3. I.A. No.01/2008, therefore, is allowed and the delay in fitlngthe appea! is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Jitendra Gupta, leamed counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5. Appeliant Smt. Malti Baf is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 12 Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.04.2007, passed in CIaim Case No.63/2007. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.5,(X),000/- claimed by the appellanUclaimant by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of e Motor Vehicles Act for the Injuries sustalned by her in the motor accident on 06.01.2004, the Tribunal awarded a totat sum of Rs.14,131/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum to theclaimant. 7. Shri Jitendra Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant vehementty argued that the compensatlon of Rs.14,131/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries and fractures sustained by the appellant in the motor accident resulting in permanent disabiiity. 8. For the reasons best known to the appeltant/claimant, the Doctor who treated the appeilant for her injuries and tesued the certificate certifying the permanent disabillty was not examined before the Tribunal. 9. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 1.131/- towareis mediral expenses; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; and Rs.3,000/- towards special diet. The Trlbunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.14,131/- as compensation to the claimant. 10. On due consideration or the submissions of tearned counsel for the appellant and the fact that the appellant/ciaimant dld not examine any Doctor before the Tribunal to establish that the injuries and fractures sustained the by the appeflant resulted fn any permanent disability, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The appeat, therefore, is liabte to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. - --——— SdA^—-='L—^r^ ...,sd/-,.^,_ ChiefJusrice Sunil Kumar Sinha y subbu