a ^*' •»•{< c^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G; M.A. (C) /2008 c,^J^' AiagHSfl f3s APPELLANT : Claimant '\\cffe."' \^^^^) -'-" ^.v^-' ^.^^" ^.^'•y" Akshat Tiwari S/o Susl'ianTTiwari, aged about 09 years, Minor, Through : legal guardian father Sushant Tiwari S/o P.N. Tiwari R/o Qr. No.34, Sector 2, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raiipur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS VERSUS 1. Satanand S/o Deocharan Sharma, aged about 34 years R/o Lakhenagar, near Durga Mandir, Thana Purani Basti, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 2. Commissioner, Nagar Palika Nigam Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) 3. The New India Insurance Company Limited, Through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office, Kutchep/ Chowk, Jail Road, Raipur(C.G.) 4. Aamod Rawat S/o M.P. Rawat, aged about 47 years R/o Qr. No. 34, Sector 2, Geetanjali Nagar, Raipur, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Miscellanceous Appeal under Section 1 73 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1994 16 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. J. M.A. (ClNo.1596 of 2008 APPELLANT AkshatTiwari. Versus RESPONDENTS Satanand and others. Hhn A.L. Bingroul, counsel tor tne appellant. ORAL ORDER (22/06/2011) Heard. This is an appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement ofthe award amount. The appellant aged about 9 years received head in.iury in an accident on 06/11/2002 involving Scooter No. M.P.20 YB 0458 which was dashed by TractorH.M.T.3522. The appellant claimed Rs.30,00,000/- as compensation, however the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.53,505/-. Learned counsel for the appetlant submits that the Tribunal has awarded a meager amount of compensation looking to the nature of injury suffered by the appellant. This Court has gone through the record of the Claims Tribunal. The appellant himsetf did not grace the witness box nor the physician who has treated him was examined. The Tribunal has considered the expenditure incurred in the treatment and after calculating the amount mentioned in 'v^ Ex.P/10 to P/72 it has found that the appellant has spent Rs.44,755/- on •-.'sy ~'g ^ ./£ ^s'^'^e"" '^.^' '•;3±%^>^?;:" \ ® ~~-2_' treatment. In addition, Rs.5,000/- has been granted for pain and suffering and Rs.3,000/- for special diet during the period of treatment. Since the treating physician has not been examined and the appellant himself has not entered the witness box, there is no scope for enhancement in the award amount. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of any substance is dismissed. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge K^