HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DJVISIONBENCH Coram HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRS SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANT M.A.(Cl. No. 123 OF 2009 RESPONDENTS Ramkishun Kaiwart, S/o. AJagram Kaiwart, aged about 20 years, R/o. Village- Khisaura, permanent resident of Village Bhothidih Lawer, P.S. Masturi, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus 1. Narendra Prasad Rathore, S/o. Fulchand Rathore, aged about 31 years, R/o. Mathora, Post Hardi Ba2ar, District Korba (C.G.) (Driver-Vehicle Bulero No.C.G.- 12-D-0342) 2. Birendra Prasad Rathore, S/o. Chamar Shray Rathore, R/o. Pragati Nagar, Quarter No.1- Q/1082, Gevra Aria, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) (Owner-Vehicle Bulero No. C.G." 12-D-0342) 3. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, Korba, Through : Divisional Manager, Regional Office-First Floor, Rama Trade Centre, Near Bus-Stand, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District BJIasplur (C.G.) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Ramakant Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. ^^r ORDER \^^^ INS^' (2Stn February, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ.: Shri Ramakant Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2. Appellant Ramkishun Kaiwart, is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.10.2008, passed in Claim Case No.07/2008. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.9,26,000/- claimed by appellant/daimant Ramkishun Kaiwart for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.04.2007, the Tribunal awarded a lumpsum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fijing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Ramakant Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant vehementjy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.25,000/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries jn the motor accjdent. 5) For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanVclaimant in the mofor accident and the fact that those injyries resylted in any permanent disability. '-?-° 6) In this state of evidence, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7) The appeal filed by the appellanVclaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge subbu fc