'^ ( IN THE fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MiscAppeal(C) N0. ^} ^/2009 w. APPELLANT: Vinod Jaiswal, S/o Dukhiram Jaiswal, Aged about 29 years, R/0 Vallage Beltara, Thana- Ratanpur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) VERSUS NON-APPELLANTS: ,.-.»'»••\?y. ^-^ 1. Dhanush Prasad Dubey, aged about 47 years, S/o Baashilal R/o Talapara, (^><^.-\''l)ri Thana Civil Lme, Distt. Bilaspur -3'^iv-:". (CG) . _ ,„..- <;sS\ ^ ^- 2. Chetan Das, Swami Dayanand Bas Sarvice, Bus stand, Bilaspur (CG) 3. Branch Maneger, The National Insurance Co. Ltd. Taha Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur(C.G.) MEMORANDUM OF MISC.APPEAL UNDER SECTION-173 OF THE MOTOR VEmCLES ACTJ988 w^-' •ysff' "? -t ^. ^ §1 JiiiaijiU HC-22 aii^i^r friwsii^r snHi<t> •(•ifia ^~--s T°? ''iWli'i^, Binl'H'ie, hciiuy SV^ 'VfSf; (^^C.C")^t(p- II*ICIT ai*iich gv37 bl "^•200 fq^ar' 311^1 ^araT^ftff SB: HON. SHRI JUSTIGE explautir^ 11-1-2010 Shri AuU Oulati, Adv| Heard on I.A. no. 1, in fUuig the appeal. On due consideratio|n, has succeeded ia appeal. Therefore, the appli^ appeal is condoned. Heard on admissionl 2. AppeUant/claimant coinpensation awarded b^ Claims Tribunal CFTC), award dated 6-12-2008 p4 3. As against fhe comj by the appellant/ claima(nt Section 166 of fhe Mcjtor sustained by hini m the| Tribunal awarded a total ^ 4. Shri Gulati, vehemently ai^ued fhat i|ocate, forappeUant |application for condonation of delay jn, I am satisfied that the appeUant £he delay eaused in filing fhe learbed <til^F<nqh 'Rp^ff ^ f^^' -<ptf^i< ^aipOTran^r fr.K. AOARWAL ation is allowed. Delay in filing fhe B4aspur is seekmg enhancement of the the Kth Additional Motor Accident (for short "the Tribunal") vide Lssed in Claim Case No. 107/2008; lensation of Rs. 3,65,000/- claimed by filing a claim petitlon tmder Vehicles Act for the injuries motor accident on 26-8-1997, the um ofRs.1,000/- ascompensation. counsel for fhe appeUant he Tribi-mal has erred in awarding > [Tf^ ^Rs^ -HC-22 sn^T'qii f<-f 3TI^?r ?ti14icfi yisa -t ^s^ -ill-illcl'4, d-dl'y'lii, r°ldl+<1< .f^(<"^ ^b NINCfT Shllch P^°9 iq^sT' sii^r ^(giWHfsn casie low compensation of Rs. claimant sustamed i accident. 5. In the present appeUant himself entered] has been examined to 6. In view of above, therefore, the appeal dismissed and is hereby 7. No order as to cost^ [,000/- only, whereas fhe appellant/ multiple serious injiuies in the motor beiijig cni^I<vi41i *ii*icif^ f^Lc1 'rf^f^SK ^T 3lPtflI StI^T pr^ve ;, on his own wisdom neither the into the witness box nor any doctor any uijuiy. since it is a case of no evldence, devoid of substance is liable to be flismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agrawal Judge