HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: Appellant Claimant Respondents HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI R.L. JHANWAR, J. Misc. Apaeal No.560 of 2006 Bholaram, S/o Tirath, aged, about 39 years, R/o ViKage Gabapur, Police Station Piparia, Tahsil and Distt Kawardha (CG) VERSUS 1 Arogya Das, S/o MJ Zarge, aged about 28 years, R/o MIG 460, Hudco PS Bhilai Nagar, Distt Durg (CG) Driver 2 M/s PS Steel Tubs Limited 26/27 Akashganga, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil and DJstrict Durg (CG) Owner 3. The New India Insurance Co. Ltd Akashganga, Supela Bhilai, Tahsil and Distt Durg (CG) Insurer Misc. Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act. Present: Shri C.J.K. Rao, counsel on behalf of Shri Jitendra Gupta, counsel for the appellant. None for respondent No.1. Shri Vipin Tiwari, counsel for respondent No.2. Shri Dashrath Gupta, counsel for respondent No.3. ORDER ?th (06tn July, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ^ Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.C.P.No.2204/2006, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2). On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and the grounds taken in the petition, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in flling the appeal. 3). M.C.P.No.2204/2006, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4). Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 5). Appellant Bholaram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by 11th Additional Motor Acddent Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 12.12.2005, passed in Claim Case No.58/2005. 6). As against the compensation of Rs.7,78,271/- claimed by appellanVclaimant Bholaram by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 08.01.1999, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.44,963/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the ctaim petition till the date of actual payment. 7). Shri C.J.K. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.44,963/- only though the appellant/ claimant • sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident induding fractures. s ^z- 8). The Tribunal on a close scrutiny of the evidence led before it awarded Rs.28,673/- towards medical expenses; Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.4,750/- towards special diet; Rs.2,470/- towards loss of income; Rs.2,470/- towards attendant; and Rs.1,600/- towards conveyance allowance. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.44,963/- as compensation to the claimants for the injuries suffered by him in the motor accident. 9). AW-2 Dr. A.D. Urgaonkar, examined by the claimants before the Tribunal though proved that the claimant sustained multiple injuries in the motor accident, but his evidence does not establish that the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disability. The Tribunal, therefore, did not award any compensation towards loss of future earning capacity. 10). On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfled that the compensation of Rs.44,963/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the appellant/ claimant could not establish that the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disability. 11). We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 12). The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge \y ^