HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DIVISIONBENCM CORAIVI: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, J, hflisc. Appeal (C) No.86of2011 Appellant Pawan Kumar Chandrakar, S/o Late Munna Lal Chandrakar, aged about 42 years, R/o Village - Kachandur, Police Station & Tahsil - Gunderdehi, District Durg (CG) Resppndents VERSUS Mangal Singh, S/o Ramcharidra Singh Tbakur, aged about 30 years, Occupation - Driver, R/o Near Hotkachauri Airport, Jagdalpur, * Police Station - Bodhghat, District - Bastar (CG) Santosh Kumar Bafna, S/o Shri Premchand Bafna, R/o Main Road, Jagdalpur, District - Bastar (CG) Bajaj Alianz General Insurance Company Limited, Shiv Mohan Bhawan, Vidhansabha Road, Pandri, Raipur (CG) IVIISC. APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THEnflOTOR VEHICLES ACT Present: Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant. ORDER rth (07InMarch,2011) N^^ '•*>. °-i*::^ li'». .'5- ^ ^•' ^ The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. . Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant are heard on I.A. No.01/2011, an application for condonation of the 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 appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No.01/2011, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant are heard on admission. 5) Appellant/ claimant Pawan Kumar Chandrakar is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9 Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 31.07.2010, passed in Claim Case No. 107/2009. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.7,82,000/- claimed by the appellanV 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 12.05.2009, the Tribunal awarded a totalsum of Rs.52,903/- as compensation along withinterest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. fi^ 7) The Tribunal considering the number and nature of the injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the. motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.39,903/- towards' medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.3,000/- for loss of income during the period oftreatment; Rs.3,000/- towards special died and conveyance; and-'Rs.2,000/- for attendant. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.52,903/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. 8) Shri Goutam Khetrapal and Shri Avinash Chand Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensatioh of Rs.52,903/- only though the appellanV claimant sustained multiple serious injuries including fractures in the motor accident resulting in permanent disability to the extent of 15%. 9) Claimant Pawan Kumar Chandrakar was aged about 42 years on the date of the accident. He was a Mason by occupation. The permanent disability certified by AW1 Dr. Akhilesh Yadav is to the extent of 15% only. The Doctor neither in his certificate nor in his evidence in the Court has stated that on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident he has been rendered unfit to pursue his occupation as Mason. The bills and vouchers produced by the" claimant before the Tribunal were to the extent of Rs.39,903/- only and the Tribunal has awarded Rs.39.903/- towards medical expenses. 10) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and the above-mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied that the compensation of Rs.52,903/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and-circumstances of the present case. 11) We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12) The appeal filed by the appellant/ claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge nimmi