-.^Wf:.. •^' .-• 1| t;i'i;;;.g|a g ^yss!!<t' ^r ^. :^v >y BSsfetelSissrsSt ), H L ? 6 STc\/ / n OF CHHATTISGARH AT DjVISIQMBENCf \9 n'tai-c srsKE i, iA,J. Rama Singh T'nakur. S/o Late Bukuloo Slngh Thakur, aged sbout 36 years, R/o Village Jagmahant, Police Station Nawagarh, Poiice Station Nawagsrh, Distt. Janjgi Champa, Present Address Bang Para, Sarkanda, Bilaspur (C.G.) 1. Chedi lal Kurre, S/o Tu!a Ram Kurre, Aged about 38 years, R/o Vliiaae Darrighat, Poiice Station Masturi, Distt. BEEaspur (C.G.) 2. Branch Manager, Bajaj Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Branch Office, Vidhan Shabha Road, Raipur (C.G.) isceljaneQysAooeal U/S 173 of the IViotoir Vehicles Present: Shri Ashok Patii. learned counsei for the appeilant. ?ihDecember,200S sowing order of the Court was passed by ajeev Gupta, C.J.: shri Ashok Patil, iearned counsel for t'ne appeilant is hea'd on admission. 2. Appellant- Rama Singh Thakur is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded bv the Second Additional Motor Accident Ctaims Tribunai, Bitaspur (for short the Tribunal) vide award dated 09.05.2008. passed in Ctaim Case No.32<'2007. ST -^' ^BfgRi-sislij^. IgE^B.tefeag^ 3. As against the compensation of Rs.8,07,000/- ctaimed by the appeilanyclaimant by fiiing a claim petltion under Section 166 ofthe Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 forthe inluries sustai.ned bv him in 15.06.2004. tf led a sum of Rs.60,000./- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petitlon tii! the of actuai payment. 4. Shri Pati!, learned counsel for the vehementiy argued that the compensation of Rs.60,000/ by the Tribunal is too iow as the appellant on account of the injuries and fractures sustalned by him in the resuitlng in permanent dlsability has been rendered unflt to pursue his occupation as Driver. 5. For the reasons best known to }he appeliam/claimant, no Doctor was examined before the TribunaS to establish the nature of the injuries sustained by the appeliant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disabllity. 6. !n this state of evidence, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded bv the Tribunai. 7. The appeal fiied by the appellant for enhancement of t'ne compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. SdA. Chief Justice subbu Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge