.^.&^i—2^^ <li!-t!». '•'I >UNi ,1 Mi Manmohan Lakhoti, S/o Umashankar Lakhotl, Aged about 10 years, Represented hereby !sgai Guardlan Father Umashankar Lakhotiya, Resident of Viiiage - Arang, Bhardev Para. Behind Jaln Mandlr Po!ic< Station - Tahsil & Distt - Raipur (C.G.) 1. Ram Pa' NON APPLICANTS Aged Nagar, ak, S/o Narendra Pathak, - 23 years, R/o Kavita r, Tahsil & Distt - Raipur. Fr.&%^nf' t i ifc/Th^'ut i^, 2. The Oriental insurance Company Limited, Divisional Manager, Divisional Office- Number 1, Kachahari Chov/k, Jail Road, Raipur, C.G. Rajiv Pathak, R/o Kavita Nagar, LIG, 103, Tahsli & Distt Raipur (C.G.) Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel forthe appellant. !S£ The foilovi'iRg order of the Court was passed by •Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for the appeilant is heard on admission. 2. TheTribunai'srecordsperused. 3. Appeilant Manmohan Lakhoti is seeking enhancement of the compensafion awarded by the Sixth Additional iVIotor 44: .^r2^'^. 'y'S^S-SSi \ ^/ /;• nimmi Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for award dated 07-02-2004, passed in Clc hort "the Tribuna'") vide CaseNo. 11/2003. 4. As against the compensatlon of Rs.5,25,000/- claimed by ei u! appellant/claimant Manmohan Lakhoti by under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act through his father Umashankar Lakhotiya for the Injuries sustained by him in the motor sccident on 20-05-2001, the Tribunal awarded a totai sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of claim petition til! the date of actuai payment. 5. Shri S.C. Verma, learned counsel for She appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred sn av/arding low compensation of Rs.5,000/- only, though the appe!!ant/ciaimant sustained multipla serious injuries in the motor accident. 5. For the reasons best known to ths appellanVclaimant no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to estabiish the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant ir, the motor accident and that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 7. !n this state of evidence, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awardsd by the Tribunai. The appea! Tiled by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. sd/- Chief Jiisdce Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge