^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. M.A.(ClNo. 348 of 2008 Chhatram Satnami, aged about 21 years, son of Shri Tikaitram Satnami, resident of Village Rajkamma, P.S. Paaii, Tah. Paali, Distt. Korba (C.G.) Presentiy resident at Chuchuhiyapara, P.S. Torba, Tahsil and Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Ramlal Gond son of Shri Ghasiram Gond, aged about 36 years, resident of village Gopalpur, P.S. Paii, Distt. Korba (C.G.) (Driver of Tata Pickup No. CG 12/9635) 2. Rohitesh Chandra Agrawal, son of Shri Ram Kumar Agrawal, resident of Post Chaitma, P.S. Paali, Tah. Paali Distt. Korba (C.G.) (Owner of Tata Pickup No, CG 12/9635) 3. Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited Korba, C/o. National insurance Company Limited, Vyapar Bihar Road, Biiaspur (C.G.) dnsurer of Tata Pickup No. CG 12/9635^ Miscellaneous Appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicies Act, 1988 Presenf: Shri Bharat Rajput, fearned counsei for the appeilant. ORDER ith \ (24tn October, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Bharat Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant is _heard on.admission. ..-^fl? 3iISTS^ ^1^'.^.. "'"^, .—•^"SK' '-'•i:f^S 1^.^ \^^ 2. Appellant/Claimant Chhatram Satnami is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Bilaspur (forshort"the Tribunal") vide award dated 26.10.2007, passed in Claim Case No. 13/2007. 3. As against the compensation of Rs. 10,43,4807- claimed by appellant/claimant Chhatram Satnami by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1 988 for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 26-03-2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation a!ong with interest @ 9% per annum from the dafe of filing of the claim petition til! the date of actual payment. 4. Shri Bharat Rajput, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries and fractures sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident. 5. For the reasons best known to the claimant, the doctor who treated the appellant for the injuries and fractures and issued disability certificate was not examined before the Tribunal to establish that the injuries and fractures sustained by the ciaimant in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disability. 6. , The Tribuna] on a thorough consideration of the evidence led by the appellant/ claimant about the amount spent on his treatment and considering the period for which the appellant 1 ^^ -^. p & f ^-".^ could not attend to his duties, awarded a lump-sum of Rs.35,000/- as compensation. 7. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and in view of the fact that the appellant did not examine the doctor before the Tribunal to establish that the injuries and fractures sustained by him in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disabllity, we are satisfied that the compensation of Rs.35,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 8. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 9. The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. -- --—-__ Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Chief Justice subbu •\