'^ Respondents COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT CJ. & RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J. IVIisc. Appeal (C) No. 177 of 2010 Ubhayram Sahu, S/o Balduram Sahu, aged about 47 years, R/o P.T.S. Coiony, 48 Quarters, Quarter No. D-8, Rajnandgaon, Tahsil and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus 1. Bhupendra Kumar, S/o Kamta Prasad Gupta, aged about 25 years, R/o PvSohia, Jaystambh Chowk, P.S. Mohla, Dlstrict Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Damberdhwaj Limbod; S/o l.B.L. Limbod, R/o Goi Bazar, Handipasra, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3 Nationai Insurance Company Limited, Head Office-3, JVIJddleton Street Koikata through Divisional Manager, Akashganga Complex, Supeia, Bhilal, dlstrict Durg (C.G.) Ao@eaLund_er^ection 173 of the Motor Vehide Act Present: Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, iearned counsel for the appeilant. Q_R_D_E_R (30l" Juiy, 2010) The foiiowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsei for the appeilant is heard on I.A. No.01/2010, an appiication for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the grounds taken in the application, we are satisfied that the appeliant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay In fi!lng the appeai. 3) l.A. No. 01/2010, therefore, is aiiowed and the delay in filing the appea! is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, iearned counse! for the appeilant is heard on admission. 5) Appeliant Ubhayram Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensatlon awarded by the Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short, 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 30.04.2009, passed in Ciaim Case No. 107 of 2008. 6) As against t'ne compensation of Rs.6,22,000/- ciaimed by the appeiiant/ claimant by fiiing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 30-10-2006, the Tribuna! awarded a total sum of Rs.20,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the daim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counset for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.20,000/- on!y though the appellant/daimant ^. '% ?;til^%: ' '%. '^'y ^•^.s^^' sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resuiting in permanent disabiiityto the extent of30%. 8) Though the accident wherein the ciaimant sustained injuries is said to have taken place on 30-10-2006, for the purposes of issuing the disability certlficate, the ciaimant for the first time was examined by AVA/2 Dr. Prakash Bhalerav after more than two years on 17-01-2009. AW2 Dr. Prakash Bhaierav in para 5 of his deposition, categoricaiiy stated that the Injuries resulting in disability to the extent of 30%, as certified by him were not more than 4-6 months old. The claimant was in the police service. He admitted that in the government hospital he was not required to pay any amount for his treatment. 9) On due consideration of the submissions of iearned counsei for the appellant and in view of the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v. Yudhvir Slngh and another, reported in (2008) 7 SCC 305, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 10) The appeal filed by the appellant/ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, fails and is hereby dismlssed summariiy. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nlmmi