2"‘k'‘ @ Leamed counsel for the appellant is heard on M.(C‘)P No.1634/2004, an appiication for condonation of deiay in fliing the appeaL 2) On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appeiiant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeai. M.(C.) P. No.1634/2004, therefore, is aiiowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned 3) Learned counsei for the appellant is heard on admission. 4) Appeilant Hemant Kumar Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award ‘ dated 25.062003, passed in Claim Case No.123/2002. 5) As against the compensation of Rs.9,95,000[— ciaimed by the appellanticlaimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the iniuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.04.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.44,540/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, tiil the date of actual payment. 6) Shri AS Singraul, learned counsel for the appeliant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.44,540/— awarded by the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the serious nature of injuries and fractures sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident. - 7) For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant. no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish that the s @ injuries sustained by the appellant in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disabiiiiy. 8) in this state of evidence, we do not find any scope of enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 9) The appeai, therefore, is liable to be dismisSed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. a .y 17 Sd/— Sdl— i ‘/' 2 sun“ KumarSmha padma , "' chief Justice i Judge