HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A.iC) No. 719/2009 DB: HON'BLE SHRI JUSTSCE SUNSL KUMAR SINHA & HQN'BLE SHRi JUSTJCE R.L. JHANWAR APPELLANT (CLAIMANT) Smt. Urmila Bai, W/o Shri Badri Kurre, aged about 41 years, R/o Viilage Bhainsbod, Tahsii Belha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) Versus Manoj Bhaskar, S/o Sri Mitthu LaE, age 26 years, r/o VilSage Nipania.Tahsii Beiha, Thana Hirri, Dlstriet Biiaspur (C.G.) Vinod Bansal, S/o Late Lakhi Ram Bansal, r/o VilSage Kesla, Thana Belha, Tahsil Belha, District Biiaspur IV16SCELLANEOUS APPEAL fCLAIMt U/S 173 OF THE JVIOTORVEHSCLESACT. 1988 Appearance: Shri D.C. Verma, Counsel for the appellant. ORALORDER • 07.05.2909) The following order of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. Heard on admission. The appeiiant/claimant has filed this appeai for enhancement ofthe amount of compensation awarded in Ciaim Case 16172007 on 21.1.2009 by the First Additionai Motor Acddent CIaims Tribunal, Bilaspur (C.G.). The appellanVciaimant filed a Ciaim Petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act daiming compensation of ^^£^ M.A(C)No.719/2009 Rs.3,30,000/- for the alleged grievous Injuries sustained by her in the motor accident, which took place on 30.6.2005, when the Hero Honda Motorcycle bearing registration No.CG-IO/BA-0835 dashed the appeiiant. Though the appeiiant pteaded that she received multiple serious injuries including fractures, but no Doctor was examined by the appellant to prove such Injuries sustained by her. Therefore, the nature of injuries said to be sustained by the appeilant were not estabiished. The Tribunal, after thorough scrutiny of the material produced before it, awarded a sum of Rs.10,000/- for the Injuries sustained by the appeilant . It aiso awarded Rs.5000/- towards pain and &ufferings and Rs.3000/- towards speciai diet and conveyance charges etc. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.18,000/- to the appeiiant as compensation on account of the motor accident, which took place on 30.06.2005. The Tribunal further awarded interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the Claim Petition ti!i its realization. Shri D.C. Verma, learned counsel forthe appellant arguesthat the appeliant has sustained fractures, therefore, the amount of compensation is too Jow. Since the appeilant did not prove that she sustained fractures in the said motor accldent, therefore, in absence of such proof, there was no question of awarding compensation on account of aiieged fractures sustalned by the appeilant. in our considered view, in absence of proving the facts of fractures by examining any Doctor, there is hardiy any scope for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to the appeiiant for the injuries sustained by her. We do not find any substance in this appeaE. The appeai is Eiabie to be dismlssed and is accordingiy dismissed at the motion stageitseif. r Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge shyna Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge