DIVISION BENCH Coram BLESHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. i 'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, .A.(CtNo.1128 of 2608 CLAIMANT -o' Shyamlal Chandrakar, S/o Shri Nammulsl Chandrakar, aged about 52 years, R/o- Tikrapara, Raipur, Tehsi! and Dlstrlct - Raipur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS S/o Shri Punit Ram Sahu, R/o- Viitage - Pander, Post - Gujra, Poiice Station—Patan, Dlstrict - Durg [DrBer of vehicle bearing registration No.CG 04/4898] Tejender Sinqh Hora, S/o Mansingh Hora, R/o- House no.360, Sunder Nagar, Raipur, Tehsil and Dlstrict - Raipur k^fer of vehlcle bearing reaistration No.GG 04/48981 Through DMslonai Maoager, Divisional Office, Mobin Mahal, G.E. Road, Raipur.District - Raipur (C.G.) [insurer of vehiele bearing registratlbn No.CG 04/4898] MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL UNDER SECT10N 1730F THj MOTORVEHiCLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant. ith 9^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant is heard onadmission. 2) This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur, District Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 10.12.2007, passed in Claim Case No.33/2007.. 3) As against thecompensationof Rs.7,00,000/-claimed by appellant/claimant- Shyamlal Chandrakar for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 18.06.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.17,000/- as compensation alongwith Interest @ 7.5 % perannum. 4) Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appeliant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.17,000/- awarded bv the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the serious injuries and fractures sustained by the appellaht/claimant in the motor accident. 5) For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, neither any disability certificate was produced before the Tribunal nor any Doctor was examined to establish that the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disability whatsoever. /?1 subbu 6) In this state of evidence, we do not find any ground for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 7) The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily -^-•^——-' 'L Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge