fL HIGHCOURTQFCHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR DIVISSON BENCH Coram HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEVGUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRS T.P. SHARSVSA, J. APPELLANT CLASMANT RESPONDENTS NON-APPLJCANT IVI.A.(C)No. 770 of 2008 Umashankar Sahu, S/o Shri Kamal Prasad Sahu, aged about 21 years, R/o Manasnagar, Khatkhatiyapara, Ward No. 12, Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) (In the trial court the appellant was a minor and he presented fhe ciaim application before the triaj court through hls legal guardian father Kamai Prasad Sahu) Versus 1. Bineet Agrawal, S/o. Kallashchand Agrawal, aged about 20 years. (Driver) 2. Kailashchand Agrawal, S/o Ramkumar Agrawal, aged about 45 years, R/o both are resident of Agrawai Motors, T.P. Nagar Korba (C.G.) (Owner) 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Through - DJvision Office Korba, Distt. Korba (C.G.) (Insurer) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLESACT Present: Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, iearned counsei for the appeHant. ORDER (17th March, 2009) The foiiowmg order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: "2-2:1 Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, iearned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2) Appellant / ciaimant - Umashankar Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Second Additionai Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, (for short 'the Tribunai') vide award dated 20.03.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 157/2007. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.8,30,000/- claimed by appellant/claimant - Umashankar Sahu by filing a ciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15.08.2005, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.60,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the daim petition tilE the date of actual payment. 4) Shri Pushpendra Kumar Patel, fearned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the compensation of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant In the motor accident. 5) For the reasons best known to the appellant/ciaimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanVclaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injLTries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) In this state of evidence, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. '^ subbu ^ 7) The appeal fiied by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarijy. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P. Sharma judge