HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlsGARH BILASPUR M.A. No.1373I2004 State of Chattisgarh (Earlier State of Madhya Pradesh), Through Couector, District Bilaspur The Dy; Inspector General (Registration), Tah. & Distt. Bilaspur APPELLANT ‘ Vs. RESPONDENTS 1 Sanjay Kumar Soni, S/o Ganpatlal Soni, R/o WI. Lafasar, Tah. Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur Kunwar'Singh Dhruv, S/o Milaura‘m Dhruv, R/o L-13, ¥adunandan Nagar, P.S. Civil Lines, District Biiaspur Shri A.S. Kachhwaha, Dy. Advocate General for the appellant/State. Shri Dashrath Prajapati, Advocate appears ori‘behaif of Shri K.K. Singh, Counsel for respondent No.1, None for respondent no.2. ORAL ORoER' (07.07.2oa9) stmu; KUMAR slut-m“ Jr Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M(C) No 191 1/2004 which is an application for condonation of delay in fling the aeal It Is stated that the appeal is barred by 16 days of limitation. @ i P pp 2 MA. No.1 373l2m4 i On due consideration of the submissions made by !eamed coullwsel for the patties, I am satissed that the appeuantIState has sufficiently explained the delay in filing the appeal. Accordingly, M.(G.)‘P. No.1911/2004 is allowed and the elay of 16 days in tiling the appeal is hereby condoned. Learned counsel for the parties are also heard on admission. The appellant/State has filed this appeal under Section 173 of the otor Vehicles Act against the award dated 25/8/2004 passed by Vlll Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC) Bilaspur (C G ) in Claim Case No 86/2004 by which a sum of Rs 100001- has been awarded as compensation to respondent No1 on account of Iniuries sustained by him in the motor accident Respondent No1 Saniay Kurnar Soni fled a Claim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation of Rs 2 00 000/— on account of multiple iniunes sustained by him In the motpr accident, which took place on 11.06.98, when the motorcycle beating registration No.M.P.26-Jl0224, on which, he was travelling as~ a pillion rider, was dashed by the offending vehicle-Ambassador Car bearing registration No.C.P.Z/601.5. The claimant examined himself in support of his claim petition and deposed that the motorcycle, on which he \‘Nas travelling, was dashed by the offending vehicle at about 5:00 pm; on 11/06/2008, when he was going from Bilaspur to Bilha. He dep‘psed that the car was coming from'the opposite direction, they were on the side of the road and the car dashed against their motbrcycle and the accident took place. He further deposed that he received injuries on his back right hand palm left hand and legs According to the M L C report (Ex -P/4) there was a fracture on his right metacarpal bone i The learned Claims Tribunal recorded the finding that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the , Ambassador Car by its driver and respondent N01 sustained injuries in the said accrdent including the fracture as contained In Ex -P/4 Since no certifcate relating to permanent disablement was fled and no other Witness was examined on behalf of respondent No.1, except the respondent himself which remained unrebutted by the appellant as they did not examine 'any witness in rebuttal, the Tribunal considering l d 2 MA. No.1 373/2004 I ‘ 'all the facts and circumstances, including the nature of iniuries sustéined by respondent No.1, awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.10,000/— as compensation on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunal aiso awarded interest @ 9% per annum from the date of fliing of the oiaim petition till its realization. ENEA , i Having heard learned counsel for the parties, l do not find any illeg lity or infirmity in the award passed by the Claims Tribunal. The appeal has no merit. The same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. 1 “is l l