\v HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUi Driver Present HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA. C.J. & 40N'BLE SHRS T. P.SHA iARMA, J. Ku. Rupaii Roy, D/o Ranjeet Roy, aged about 14 years, minor throuah leaal ouardian (father) Ranjeet Roy, S/o Late Shri Vijay Roy, aged about ^ years, R/o P.V.-36, Post Hanker, PoSlce Station & Tahsil-F District K^nker (C.G.) Sushant Manda!, S/o Sudhir Mandai, aged about 21 years, R/o Viilage-P.V.-79, P.S. Bande, District-South Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) Arif Qurashi, S/o Hazi Abduiagni Qurashi, aged abouf 32 years; R/o in front of Petrol Pump, Main Road, Pakhanjur, Kanker, District-Kanker (C.G.) ER SECTiON 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Sunita Jain, iearned counsel for the appellant. (18th 'he foliowina order of the Court was passed by Gupta, C.J.: Ms. Sunita Jain, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appeliant- Ku. Rupali Roy, a minor girl, aged about 14 years through her father Ranjeet Roy is seeking enhancement of ^ f-t the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhanupratappur, District - Kanker (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 19.12.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 08/2008. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.16,20,000/- claimed by the claimant by filing a claim petition under Sectlon 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 09.03.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.42,172/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4) Ms. Sunita Jain, tearned counsel for the appeiiant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.42,172/- only. 5) The Tribunal found that the injuries sustained by the appetIanVclaimant in the motor accident were of simple nature. Ths Tribunal, therefore, awarded a totai sum of Rs.42,172/- as compensation. 6) For the reasons best known to the appeltant/claimant and her father, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish that the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeilant/claimant in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disability or disfiguration. 7) In this state of evidence, we do not find any scope for enhai^ement of the compensation awarded.by the Tribunal. •^ 7) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. _.... Sd/- ChiefJiistice s<v- T.P. Sharma judge subbu