HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH :!l!ii;iBatt:U Coram : HON'BLE SHRi RAJEE HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL isnM- Wi'SSS^SSSSSisi, lisceilaneous Appeal No. 376 of 2004 Narendra Kumar Dhruw, S/o Sri Jhadi Ram Dhruw, Aged about 29 Years, R/o Village - Joudhi, Post-Champaran, Tahsli Abhanpur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Versus ) Sita Ram Dhruw, S/o Sri Umendra Singh Dhruw, Aged about - 45 years, Occupation- Tractor- Driver, R/o Sanjay Nagar Fingeshwar, Thana - Rajim, Distt - Rsipur (C.G.) , S/o Sri Suk Lal Harit, Aged about - 50 years, R/o hfaiba Para, Fingeshwar, Thana - Rajim, Distt - Raipur (C.G.), Tractor Owner. The New india Company, Li'mi'ted, Branch No.2, Raipur, Development Tribunai, ^uiiding - Bajrang Market, Raipur, ;.G. Divisional Through : Manager, Divisional Office- Power House BhHai, Distt- Durg (C.G.) WOTORVEHICLESACT,1SSi Present:, , Shri AS Sinaraul.iearned counsei for ths appellant. —l""-~»e~- ORDER ith' The folfowing order of the Court was passed by L ^ i^^ L ^^ "i * 2 ^.•'^.^^3:^?^ Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on M.(C.)P No.1625/2004, an application for condonation of delay in fiiing the appeai. 2) On due consideration, M.(C.) P. No.1625/2004 is allowed and the delay in filing the appea! is hereby condoned. 3) Leamed counsel for the appeliant is heard on admission. 4) Appeilant Narendra Kumar Dhruw is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the First Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur, (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.06.2003, passed in Claim Case No.163/2002. 5) As against the compensation of Rs.7,15,000/- claimed by the appellant/clalmant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehlcies Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 28.04.2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.54,530/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of actuai 6) Shri AS Singrauf, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued ihat the compensation of Rs.54,530/- awarded by the Tribupai is too low in comparison to the serious nature of / injuries and fractures sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident. 6) For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish that the iFijyries sustained bythe appellant in the motor accident resuited in any permanent disability. : ^^-^^- •- s 7) In this state of evidence, we do not find any scope of enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is » hereby dismissed summarily. > Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge padma / '^^^^&....