@ HEGE COURT OF CHHATTESGARH AT B£LASPUR DNE$£ON gENCH ’ V Caram : HGW§LE $HRE RIUEE'V GW—‘TR CJ. & ##ON’BLE $HR! $UN£L KUMAR SuWHA, J. MISC. £KPF’EAL N0. a}? o? ZiKi‘S IAPPELLANT: Kachra Bai; Aged abaut 48 years; ‘ Ci‘aimam W/c» Dhankam, RIG Vi§%age Par$ahi, Thana~ Songargarh, Tahs?! Kharagarh, istt. Rajnancigaon (C.GA) EERSUE 1: PardeShirami Aged aboui SQ years, S/o Tulsiram, R/o Vinage Badhiyatma, Tahsu and Thana Dongargarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon 2. Samar Randeep Singh, S/a Sardar Sinderpa€ Singh, R/o Kundupara, Dongargarh; Disft. Rajnandgaén A?PEAL UNEER SEGTEQN W3 MC}?QR VEHI$LE AST. RES PONBENTE Drivér and Ow5er Present: Shri Puneet Ruparei, ieamed ccunse! for the a‘g;3e!§ar1t. ORaER (22m Januaryg ZQQQ} The: foliowing order of “the Court wigs passed by Rageev GupEa, (1i: Learned counsel for the appeiiani: is heard on M40}? ‘ No.64? of 2005, a petition for oondonation of delay in Wing the appeaL On due consideration, we are sarisr’ied that the appeuant ‘3 has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the de§ay in fiiing the appeei. ix D )h. @ 3) M.(C.)P. No. 641 of 2005, therefore, is anowed and the 9 delay in filing the appeal ls hereby candoned. 4) Learned counsel fal :he appellani ls heard an admisslcm, 5‘) Appellant Kachra Bal is seeking enhancement of the 3 campensatlon awarded by the First Additional Meter Accldent Claims Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short ‘the Tribunal’), vlde award dated 06.1 1 .2004¥ passed in Claim Case N0.69/2003. 6) As against the compensation of Rs’.3,50,QOO/- claimed by the‘appellantfclaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries suetained by her in the moter accident on 13.04.2003, the Tribunal awarded a tetai sum of Rs.13,1001— as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. 7t Shri Puneet Ruparel, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low . compensation of Rs.13,1GO/- only, though the appellant suffered G ' multiple serious injuries in the motor accident om13.042003. 8) For the reasons best known to the appellantlolaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunat to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appeltant/olaimant in the motor aocidentiand the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. Q) In this state of evidence, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunals I 1 llI i 10) The appeal filed by the appeiiani/ciaimani for enhancemem <3? the compensaiion, iherefore, is iiabie ta be dismissea and is ‘here’by dismissed summarily. Sdl- Chief Justice“ padma Sdl- Sunil Kumar Sinha ‘ Judge