e& '^12' \ H!GH COURT OF CHHATTiSGARH AT B1LASPUR DjyiSSQIMBENCH U'ltlllliU.lll.tlMllti^-i-l—a" »i'BLESHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SKRI SUNiL KUMAR SINHA, J. .IVIisc Appeal No.478/2004 Uttam Kumar Sinha, S/oShri Bhrosa Ram Sinha, Aged about 19 years, ' R/o Village Telitola, Police Station Bandha Bazar, TAhsil, Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (CG) Versus T Atmaram @ Nandkumar, S/o. Kheduram, Aged about 45 yeare, R/o Viltage Dadutola, Post - Bandha Bazar, Tahsil Ambagarh Chov;k'i, Districf Rajnandgaon (CG) (Driver) 2 Mehtab'Khan, S/o Sakil Khan, Aged about R/o Bandha Bazar, Tahsil, Ambagarh Chowki, District ^ Rajnandgaon (CG) fv'ehicle Owner) 3 National Insuranee Co Ltd Through iranch Manager National Insurance Co. Ltd Kamthee Line, Rajnandgaon (CG) Appeal under Section 173 of Motor VehicleAct 1988 Present :• ShriVasantDewangan.counseifortheappellant, IES ith (19In November, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. Shri Vasant Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant Is heard onadmission. 2)' / Appellant Uttam KumarSinha isseeking enhancement ofthe compensatidri awarcted b'y the Addltional h4otor Vehicle Claim Tribunal, Rajnandgaon (for short, 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 11.03.2004, passed in Claim Case No. 160/2001. 3) |As against the compensation of Rs.8,80,000/- ctaimed bythe appetlant, by filing aciaim petition under Section 166 of the Motor ^^^ y.L vet. "s 11.'lfe. fcs 2 lil! padma ! i"i'*^T:i Vehicies Act for the Injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 11.02.2001, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.27,600/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of the filing of the Claim Petition, till the date of actual payment. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribuna! has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.27,600/- only, though the appeSIanydaimant on account of the injuries and the fracture sustained in the motor accldent resulting in perman'ent disability to the extent of 20% has been rendered unffl to pursue his occupationas labourer. >5 For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunai to establish the nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant In the motor accident and the resultant permanent disabiiity, if any. 6) Inspite of the above, the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding Rs.7,600/- towards medical expenses and Rs.20,000/- under other heads and thus a total sum of Rs.27,600/- was awarded as compensation to the appellant/claimant. 7) On due consideration of the submissions of learned counset for the appeilant, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by.the Tribunal. -. f ~ S) The appeal filed by.the appellant/daimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. SdA ~--L ChiefJustice Sd/- Sunil KumarSinha Judge isa S^ •^^S^^' -".a-s.-.ita