HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CORAM: APPELLANT Claimant DIVISIONBENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. M.A.fdNo. 797 of 2008 : Lah'aram Satnami, aged 30 years, S/o Chandram Satnamj, resident of Tihalipali, P.S. Sarseeva, Tahsil - Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Versus 1. Ratanlai, Son of Budhuram Pradhan Kolta, aged about 27 years, resident of Amlidih, P.S. Bilaigarh, District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Kedarnath Sahu, resident of Pawani, P.S. Bilaigarh, Tahsil Bilaigarh, Pistrtet Raipur (C.G.) 3. The New India Insurance Company Umited, Divisional OfRce Hanci Floor, R.D.A. Building, Bairan Bazar, Raipur. 4. United India tnsurance Company Limited, Korba (C.G.) 5. Chandram, S/o Mariu Satnami, aged about 58 years, resident of Tihalipali, P.S. Sarseeva, District Raipur(C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal U/S 173 ofthe MotorVehictes Act. 1988 Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant. ORDER (1stJuly, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appeltant is heard on admission. 2. Appellant - Laharam Satnami is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balodabazar, (for short the Tribunal') vide award dated 31-10-2006, passed in Motor Claim Case No.168/2006. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.3,75,000/- claimed by claimant - Laharam Satnami for the injuries sustained by hlm in the motor accident on 13-08-2004 when his motorcycte was dashed by the offending vehicle - Truck bearing registration No. CG 04/G 0171, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.7,000/- atong with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tillthe date of actual payment. 4. Shri Goutam Khetrapal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.7,000/- only, whereas the appellant suffered multiple grievous injuries in the motor accident. 5. For the reasons best known to the claimant, no Doctor was examined before the Tribunal to prove the injuries atleged to have been sustained by the claimant. There is not even an iota of evidence to establish that the jnjuries said to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disability whatsoever. It is evident from the nature of the injuries .said to have been sustained by the claimant that the claimant would not have spent much amount on his treatment. 6. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. —- Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunal Kumar Sinha Judge subbu E