HIGH COURT OP CHHATTI8GARH AT BILASPUR M.A. (C.lNo. 119/2009 DB: HON*BLE 8HRI 8UNIL KimiAR 8INHA & HOW'BLB SHRI T.P.SHARMA. J.J. APPBLLANT (Claimant) RBSPONDBNTS (Non-claimantsli Smt Sawita Miaj w/o Shri Jwaa Kishor Minj, aged 35 years, profession service as Ward Aya, R/o viUage Bhafh.upara, BUaspur chouk Maaipur, Thaaa and Tatisfl Aiabikapur, District Sai^uja(CG) Versus 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Lmiited Ambikapur, Braach oJSice Anibedakar Chouk, Manendragarh road, Anibikapur District Sarguja (CG) 2. Sunil Kumar Gupta s/o Shri Shivpyare Gupta, aged 40 years, cast TeU, Profession owner of bus, R/o village and Mohalla Ara, Balraxapur, Thaaa Dhorpur, District Sarguja(CG) 3. Mohammad Haqik s/o Shekh Mohamiaad, aged 35 years, Rrofession driver ofbus, R/o viUage Udari P.S. & Tahsil Lundra, District Sarguja(CG) MI8C. APPBAL U/S 173 (11 OF THE MOTOR VBHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Vijay Deshiaukh, counsel for fhe appeUaat. ORAL ORDBR (31.01.2009) The following order of the Court is passed by Sunil Kunwr Slnhe^ J. Heard on adinission. MA(C) 119/2009 l^ The appellant/claimaat has fUed this appeal for enhancenient of fhe amount of coinpensation, awarded ia Claun Case No. 45/2006, by fhe Motor Accident Claiais Tribunal, Sarguja (Ainbikapur) vide award dated 23,10.2008. The appellaat/claimant- Sint. Sawita Miaj received personal iajuries ia a motor accident, which took place on 10.12.2005, She filed a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claimmg compensation of Rs.4,95,000/- for fhe personal iajuries sustamed by her ia fhe motor accident. Para 30 of fhe inipugned award would show fhat ia the said accident her clevical bone was fractured aad fhere were also fractures of ribs, Though niaoy docunients pertainiag to her treatinent were filed, but no certi&cate, showing permaaent disablenient was filed by her. The claiinant gave oral evidence that she spent Rs.2,00,000/- for her ta-eatment aad she would require a sum of Rs.30,000/- for further ti'eatnient However, she filed docuiaents Ex.15 to Ex.36 pertaiaiag to niedical expenses aad Exs.37 to Ex.44 pertaiaiag to traveUiag expenses, The tribunal aUowed the entire aaiount of fhe docuxnents filed by her aad awarded a suia of Rs.38,829.24 on fhis account The taribunal further awarded a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards paia and suflTeruig, Rs.1,300/- towards expenses of an ass^taat aad Rs.2,100/- towards loss ofiacome, which was calculated on fhe basis of monthly pay of the claiaiant. The tribunal also awarded Rs.650/- towards special diet taken by fhe claunaat Thus, fhe tiibunal awarded a total sum Rs.47,900/- as compensation to fhe claimant on account of the injunes sustaiaed by her ia fhe inotor accident. The tdbunal furfher awarded interest @ 9 % p.a. on fhe said amount frora fhe date of fiUng of fhe claiia petition tiU its reaUzation. Learaed counsel for fhe appeUaat argues that fhe tdbunal has not properly assessed her coinpensation on account of niedical expenses, He also argues ftiat the iajuries sustaiaed by tlie clamiant have resulted iato permaiient disability. ^•^ 1^ MA(C) 119/2009 We have considered the above argumients. Though fh.e claimaat gave oral evidence that she made expenditure of Rs.2,00,000/- on account of medical expenses, but she could not produce aay dociunent to explaua such expenditiire. The tdbunal allowed the entire amount of fhe docuinents, which fhe clamiaat had filed, showiag her niedical expenses. So far as the argumLent ia relation to permaaent disability is couceraed, as stated above, no document to fhis effect was filed nor any Doctor was examiaed by the claunaat to support fhis contention. In view of aU fhis, we do not find aay scope for enhaacement of fhe amount of compensation awarded by fhe Clainis tdbunal. The appeal has no nierits. The saiae deserves to be aad is accordiagly dtemissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- [«^.Sharma Judge sunita