/Fr" t ^) y HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. M.A. (Cl fPRl No. 473 of 2009 APPELLANT/ CLAiMANT Versus RESPONDENTS 1) (Driver) (Owner) 2) Narayan Sahu S/o Bisat Ram Sahu aged about 22 years, R/o Village - Deori, Thana - Deori, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Girwar Singh Kripal S/o Shri Ramji Kripal age about 35 years, R/o Village-Persuli, Thana-Deori, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Smt. Gauri Choudhary W/o Nand Kumar Choudhary R/o Shankernagar, Chawani, Bhilai, Tah & Distt. Durg (C.G.) The New India Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Branch Manager, Branch Office, G.E. Road, Power house, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) Bishat Ram Sahu S/o Chain Singh, age about 58 years r/o Gram & Thana - Deori, Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Owner of the Motor Cycle NO.C.G.07LA./3840) MEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT. 1988 Present: Shri C.R. Sahu & Shri S.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appetlant. (Insurer) 3) 4) ORDER (01st April, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. @ Shri C.R. Sahu & Shri S.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant are heard on admission. 2. Appellant Narayan Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balod, District Durg (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 26-12-2008, passed in Claim Case No.28/2008. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.3,47,900/- claimed by the appellant/ claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 13-01-2008, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.23,730/- ascompensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4. Shri C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.23,730/- only, though the appellanV claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 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 appellant/daimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6. In this state of evidence and in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of A.P. SRTC v. P. Thirupal Reddy, reported in (2005) 12 SCC 189 and Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, we do not iml do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7. The appeal, therefore, is Jiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge ^i E? 3 € k'•(