@ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR EiVl$ION BENCH ‘ CORAM: HON’BLE SHRE R£5JEEV GUPTk, C’J. x HON’BLE SHR! SUNIL KUMAR‘SINHA, J. M.A.Nc.1s/2oa5 ‘ Videshi,§ S/o Teef‘Ram, gged about 28 years, Occupation — Labour, We Dr Ambedkar Nagar, Near Kabeer Chowk, Raigarh (CG) APPELLANT _CLA€MANT VeE’Sus h 1. 7 I on—AppHcans Hsar Mahapatra, 8/0 Sa€yanand Mahapatra, Village — Saria, ' Tah$ii — Sarangarh, District gr (Vehicle Owner rivr The Ora! Insurance Company imitd ea Office Oriental House A 5 saf Aii Road, New Delhi,» Throuh anch Manager, ltwari Bazar, lgarh, Tahsil & District — Raa (C) ‘ , i? VEHICLEe § Apnea ween eECneM 173 OF we Miam : AcT. 1933 resent: S. Hamlda Siddique, cousl for the appellant. Shri Sdhir grawal, counl for- respondent N02. " mt“ Februa, 2m) he olowng order of the ourt was passed by ajeev ua, J. Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 2). Appellant Videshi has filed this appeal for enhanoement of the compensation awarded by the Fourth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’), vide award dated 27.1 1 .2004, passed in Claim Case No.33/2004. RESPONDEms i Nt emga y Raiah and De) iant Le, Hd 2/2} “A g Bf Ra igrh G P mt ne ‘ u A se ORDER ry m T fli C é Gpt S €i§ v a» ‘ 3). As against the compensation bf,Rs.8,47,0‘OO/— ciaimed by: the appeliant/ claimant by filing a claiqn petition under Section 166 . of the Motor, Vehicies Act for the injuiies sustained by him in the motor accident on 21.12.2002, the Ttibunai awarded a totai sum iof Rs.83,100i- as compensation aioing with interest @ 6% per ann‘um from the date of hiing‘ of the ciaim petition tiii the date of z actuai payment. 3'4). 'Smt. Hamidal Siddique, ieameocounsel for the appeitant" ‘vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding‘iow compensation of Rs 33 100l- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple fractures in the motor acmdent f L5). For the reasons best known to the appellantf claimant no ' doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant! claimant in the motor accrdent and the fact that those injuries resulted In any permanent disability ‘6) . in this state of evrdence, we do not find any scope for ;enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. y i7). v The appeal therefor is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summaril 1R ‘ Sdl- ‘ l r F ChiefJustlce x J] Judge [i _ i V - to J V ‘ i ‘Sd/— l 3. i V , ‘ . r i SunilKuniarSinha i“ ?it -rt Vsubbu s