HIGH COURT (3F CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR mmsaw BENCH s Coram : HON ELE $HRE RAJtEV GUP’W\ C J & HON BLE $HRIS N‘ K"M $§NHA J MA. No. 3§$0f 206d APPELLANT Ram Kumar Sahu, Slo Sri Slddhu CLAIMANT Sahu, Aged about-4O years, Occunation —- Camenter R/o- Kama}, Tahsn — Réjim, 'DEStt — V‘ Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS MEMO OF MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UIS 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLE ACT, 1988 ‘ Present: Shri S.C. Verma and Shri A.L. Singraui, iearned counsei for the appeiiant. ORDER (6m Januaw, 29w) The foliowingerder of the Court was passed by g Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Shri S.C. Verma and Shri A.L. Singraui, iearned counsel for the appellant are heard on M.(C.).Po No.161‘7/2004, a petition for condonatlon of the delay In filing the appeal RE$PONDEN§ (1) Ashok Kumar Sahu 3m Sri NON-APPUCANT I\: annu La? Sahu Aged about - 32 years Occupation — Mlnl Bus Driver., Rio Shitia Para, Navapara Rajim Tahsi! and Distt-Raipur \VU) (2) Parasmal, S/o Sri Pajma! Goichha, Aged abaut — 50 years, Occupation — Mini Bus Owner R/o Ga] Read, Nawapara, Rajim, Tahsil & Diett — Raipur (C.G.) (3) The New india Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisionai Manager, Divisional Office, Kachahari Chowk Jaii Road, Raipur (C.G.) R). 2) On due consideratic‘m, .(C;.)P. No.1617/2004 is allowed M and the delay of two days in filing the appeal is hereby oofidoned. 3) Shri 8.6. Verma and Shri A.L. Singrauli learned counsel for ,he appellant are heard on admission. l 4) Appellant Ram Kumar Sahu is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor ccident ‘ Qiaims Tribunal, Raipur’(for‘ srt ‘the Trunai’) vide award dated 18.1 0.2003; passed in Claim Case No.1 12/2002. 5) i As against the compensation of Rs.5,50,000f— claimed by appellant/claimant Ram Kumar Sahu, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident, the Tribunal awarded a otai sum of t Rs,000/- as compensation along with intest @ 6% per annum .2 er from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Learned counsel for the appeliant vehemently argued tht a t the compensation of Rs.2,000/- awarded‘by the Tribunal is too low ‘ i in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident. . 7) For the reasons best known to the appellantlclaimant, 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 accidenLand that those iniuries resulted in any permanent disability. 8) in this state of evidence, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. i ‘ A ho ib 9) The appea! filed by the appeilantmiaiman’t for enhansement of the compensation; therefore, is liabte to the dismissedgand is hereby dismissed summarily. “w r‘/’/_/”/’ sov- ass‘h‘wegd, ‘V - Awk/ / Sunil Kumaf Sink/3" " Chlef . Jusuce . Judge /