IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR fC.G.' M.A.(C)^3' /2010 APPELLANT : Claimant 8Sil||ia tiBaiifisi Dukalha Sahu, aged 40 years, son of Baisakhu Sahu, Occupation Electrician, R/o. Village Nakfi, Post Mandir Hasoud, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS .....^^ ^-x^( ^•^^^i-""- n^ Rajesh Minchurkar, aged 24 years, S/o. Mohan Minchurkar, R/o. MIG 1/161, Hudco, Amdi Nagar, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.) Dashrath, S/o. Ramsharan, R/o. House No. 1/A, Strit 26, Sector-11, Bhilai, Tahsil and District Durg (C.G.), The United India Insurance Company Limifed, Through : The Divisional Manager, Division Office, Kachhari Chowk, Krishna Complex, Raipur, (CG) Miscellanceous Appeal underSection 173 ofth_e MotorVehicleAct, li'94 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR APPELLANT MISC. APPEAS'No. 331/2010 Dukalha Sahu Versus RESPONDENTS Rajesh Minchurkar and others SB:- HON'BLE SHRt N.K.AGARWALiJ PRESENT:- , Shri A.L. Singrol, Advocate, for the appellant. None appears for respondent No. 1. None appears for respondents No. 2 and 3 though served. ORAL ORDER (21-4-2011) 1. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation in the award dated 20-7-2009 passed by Kth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Raipur m GlainijCa.seiNQ..:32/t2pOS whereby an amount of Rs. 24,037/- has been awarded. as compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant in the accident dated 21-8-2007. 2. Facts of the case, ,in brief,,£ire that on 21-8-2007 respondent No. 1/driver of Indica Car bearing registration No. CG 07 LC-9600, owned by respondent No. 2, driving the vehicle in a rash and negUgent manner, dashed the claimant near PTC Square, VIP Road, Mana Camp as a resuk of ^-which, ihe isustairied'r^rievousv iiyurtesi The claimant filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming Rs. 13,00,OOO/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the said aecident. 3. Learned Tribunal on a.close scrutiny ofthe'evidence led, material placed and submissions made, holding claimant did not sustain permanent disability in the said accident, awarded aforesaid ainount as compensation. 1. 7, 8. Shri Singrol, learned counsel for the appellant submits, the amount awarded is shockingly on lower side which deserves to be suitably enhanced. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. Indisputably, accident had occurred on 21-8-2007. Thereafter one more accident of claimant had occurred before his examination by Dr. G.S. Bachchoo in the instant case on 18-3-2009. Dr. G.S. Bachchoo himsetfhas deposed, he is not in a position to say whether injuries were caused due to said accident or due to any other reason. It is also not in dispute, treating doctor was not examined. In such circumstances, when according to appellant himself, he met with some other accident between the date of present accident and his examination by Dr. G.S. Bachchoo and in the light of the statement of ';-'. •• ^r" •;.--•.•;.ni o; .:'i:uin.':'i :.':; ' .H-"-'1 the doctor and considering the fact that the treating doctor was not examined, it cannot be said that learned Tribunal has committed any illegality in holding appellant did not sustain any permanent disability. Learned Tribunal without proof of legal evidence has awarded Rs. 24,037/- as compensation, which cannot be said to be on lower side. For the reasons mentioned above, in the considered opinion of this Court, the amount awarded is just and reasonable. The appellant failed to poinf'out any illegality in the amount awarded. The appeal being devoid of substances deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge