@ HSGH CGURT éF CHHATTI$GARH AT BQLASPUR ?\i\liQlI\M EMCH CQRAM; ECNggLt S§IRE WJEEV GU53TA. CJ. EON’BLE SHRI SUNEL K5MAR S§Ni%i'-§, J. u: u “any“. u Misc Ameai N0.53$i2é65 (E gamma under Secrian 173 of the Motor Vehicie Act. 1938 Presen? : Shri GP Yadav. Advocate on behalf of 8hr; Ashck \Kumar Shukla, counser far the appellant. GER 12‘“ Apraa, 2999; a \ The foiiowing order of the Court "’was passed by Rajeev Gugota, CJ. Learned counser for the appenanr is heard on admission. 2) Appenant Nahar Singh is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarctee? by the Second Additional Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunai, Surajpur, District Surguja (CG), Vide award dated 3i .01 .2065 passed in Claim Case No.12f2004. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.5,G0,0DD/-, ciaimed by the apoeiiant / ciaimant by fiiing a ciaim petition under Section 166 i/" t fwneaam Nahar Singh, S/o Rmlak, Caste — Gond, Gaimant Aged about 3G years, Occupation - ’ Agriculturist and Service, R/o Véilage ’ Kammpur @ Katmi, PS & Tahs%% Surajpur, District Surguia (CG) Versus Raispandems 1 $umeshwar, Son of Ramdhan kl NGI’E-a§§nv8m5 “A £1 i/A r\€Siidiwa’i"I§, [cu-«mug Hgcu A Ag! auuut nkanl- -ru 1" ..nnnn yaam, Occupation — Agricultunst 8: Buiness, R/o ViHage Gangauii PS & Tahsi: Surajpur, District Surguja (CG) Gwrrer 2 rjarshuram S/o Ram Prasad Ram R/o JaEnagar, éS Jainagar, Tahsr'l Surajpur Eistrict Surguja (CG) (REGrSTERED OWNER) @ i ‘ ‘ 1 ‘ ‘ lcf‘ the Motor VehicEes Act for the injuries sustained by hEm En the Emotor accident on. 27.61 .1§89, the Tr§bunal awarded tbtaE sum of Rs.35,0GO/- as sompensation aiang with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of the fmng of the ciaim petition, tili the date of actuai i 1 payment. A) Shri OP Yaday, teamed counsel for the appeiiants K vehementiy ‘ argued that the compensation of Rs.35,0G0/— awarded by the Tribunai is too tow in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the appeiiant/olairnant in the motor accident. 5) For the. reasons best known to the appenanticiaimant no deotor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellantfclaimant tn the motor accident and the fact that those iniuries resulted in any permanent disability. in the absence of the examination of the doctor before the Tribunai, the other material adduced in evidence before the Tribunai cannot be taken as substantive evidence in view of the dicta of the Apex Court in the cases of ARSRTC Vs P.Thurupal Reddy reported in {29%; 12 SCC‘E'ESQ Raiesh Kumar atias Rain V's Yudhvir Singh and another, reported in {2008) 7 SSC aid. We: therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 6} The appeal, th'efefore, is iiabie to be dismissed and is hereby 1 " . dismissed summariiv __ I: ‘ Sdl if h Sdl" 4 Sunil Kumar Sinha Chief Justicef r § Judge padma r