.»! ^1:^ t'i^ '?1 fk^ ^ i m\ B!'!l w I'.!.; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONTBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE 8HRI RAJEEV OUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. Appellant Claimant Before the Tribunal M.A.(ClNo.180of2009 Smt. Sangita Yadav, W/o Shri Ramvilash Yadav, aged about 30 years, R/o Village and Post-Barhapur, P.S. & Tahsil Dhamda, Distt. Durg RESPONDENTS 1 NON-APPLICANTS Before the Tribunal Versus Nakul Sahu, S/o Bhuwan Sahu, R/o Chichola, P.S. Kairagarh, Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (DriveroftheVehfete^ Krishna Kumar Yadav, S/o Sttaram Yadav, R/o 789 M.P. Housing Board Colony, Gudiyari Raipur, Distt. Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of the Vehicle) Branch Manager, Natlonat Insurance Company Ltd., Akash Ganga, Supela Bhilaj, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) (Insurer of the Vehicte) Policy No.320800/31/05/630000474 Valid from 08.02.2006 to 07.02.2007 Smt. Ganga Devi Pandey, W/o Late Shri Deshraj Pandey, R/o of C/o Dr. P.N. Mishra, Raj Family, Khairagarh. Distt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal U/S 173 ofthe MotorVehlde Act Present: Shri Jitendra Gupta, leamed counsel for the appellant. ORDER (26th February, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. r -::n © Shri Jftendra Gupta. leamed counsel for the appellant is heard on I.A. No. 01/2009, an application for condonation of delay tn filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellanfr has succeeded in showing sufflcient cause for the delay in flling the appeal. 3. I.A. No. 01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Jitendra Gupta, leamed counsel for the appellant is heard on admjssion. 5. Appellant/ Claimant Smt. Sangita Yadav is seetdng enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Eighth AddittonaJ Motor Accjctent Claims Tribunal, Durg (for shortthe Tribunal'), vide award dated 29.08.2008, passed in Clalm Case No.81/2006. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.4,45,000/- claimed by appellant/claimant Smt. Sangita Yadav by filing a claim petttton under Section 166 of the Motor Vehteles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor acddent on 25.10.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of R8.33,231/- as compensation along with jnterest @ 6% per annum from the date of fiting of the claim petition Ull the date ofactual payment. 7. Shri Jitendra Gupta, teamed counsel for theappellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding tow compensation of Rs.33,231/- only though the appellant/ claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor acciderrt. •"^ .-•^^-13^c^,. /d." f^te^ -^ ^^ ^rg^"' nlmmi 8. For the reasons best known to the appettant/ clalmant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those jnjuries resulted in any permanent disabillty. 9. In this state of evldence, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dlsmissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Y.,i;?ff.'?E ;.S'A®3S5i3E?£BSpes^SE3-^^»ti-.CTi-; ;K?BS55®SSS?a;a?ZEK;2W:'»!SK»-fB3u>&^.•.'.;"--