IGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIWSION BENCH HON’BLE SHR! RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. 8: HON’BLE SHRI T.P. 5HARMA, J. Coram MA. (C) No. 124 of 2008 APPELLANT Jaini Bai, W/o Ba}rang APPL!CANT Dewangan, aged about 28 years, resident of Sargipal Para, Tahsii Kondagaon, District Bastar (CG) Versus 1. Prakash Chand Dewangan, S/o Baiiram Dewangan, aged about 35 years} by caste Koshta, resident of Paiari, Tahsil Kondagaon, P.S. Kondagaon, District Bastar (C.G.) (OWNER OF THE VEHICLE) RESPONDENTS 2. Nationai insurance Company Limited, Branch Jagdaipur, District Bastar (CG) (INSURANCE COMPANY) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF TH€ MOTOR VEHICLES ACT Present : Shri Rakesh Anthony, learned counsei for the appeiiant. Shri NP. Koshta, learned couneei for respondent No. 1. Shri Sudeep Agrawal, iearned counsel for respondent Nor 2. G R D E R (03m March, 2903} The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. : Learned counsel for the parties are heard on LA. Nam/2008, an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal H 2) On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal 3) l.A. Nam/2008, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4) Learned counsel for the parties are heard on admission. 5) Appellant — Jaini Bai is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jagdalpur (for short ‘the Tribunal’) vide award dated 26.12.2005, passed in Claim Case No.150/2004. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.6,90,000/— claimed by appellant/claimant - Jaini Bai by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 29.05.2004, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.8,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7) Shri Rakesh Anthony, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.8,000/— only, though the appellant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. 8) For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/ciaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. A 9) In this state of evidence, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the TribunaL 10) The appeal fiied by the appellant/claimant for enhancemenf of the compensation, therefore, is Iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. T.P. Sharma Judge Sdl- é Chief Justice