•'<;: vy/!£s~ '\ I;^._- - HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiVjSIQNBENCH Coram HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRS SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. M.A.tONo. 1394 of 2008 CLAIMANT Pavitr Pradhan, S/o Sunadhar Pradhan, age 25 years, r/o village-Jada Muda, Thana Basana, Distt. Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS/ 1. Mushir Ahmed, S/o Munir Ahmed age 47 years, Occup. Truck Driver R/o Plot No. 428, Subhash Nagar, Nagpur, (Maharashtra) At present R/o Gulshan Fred teriya, Nagpur, (Maharashtra) (NonAppiicantNo.1) 2. Ajak Hussain, S/o Ikhalak Hussain Through A.K. Khan Masjid Ke pass, Santoshi Nagar, Raipur (C.G.) (Non Applicant No.2) 3. United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Nagpur, Through Mandal Office Front of Courty, Krishna Complex Raipur (C.G.) (NonApplicant No.3) Misceltaneous Appeal U/S 173 ofthe MotorVehieles Act. 1888 Present: Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appeilant. ORDER (22"'1 October. 2008S The following order of the Court was Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: ^> .rf*r"a-"^. '~&. ( """" "\ ^•Ss^'i^i ;• \fc Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on !.A. No.01/2008, an appiication for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration, I.A. No.01/2008 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 3. Learned counset for the appellant is heard on admission. 4. Appellant Pavitr Pradhan is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Firet Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunai, Mahasamund (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 02.04.2008, passed in Claim Case No.50/2007. 5. As against the compensation of Rs. 10,10.OOO/- claimed by Ihe appellant/claimant by flling a claim petition under Sectfon 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 15.08.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs. 10.000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 6. Shri Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appeltant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries and fracture sustained by him in the motor accident. 7. For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, the Doctor who treated the appellant for hss injuries was not examined before the Tribunal to establish that the injuries and the fracture resulted in any permanent disability. 8. The Tribunal on a thorough consideration of the evidence led by the appellant/claimant awarded Rs.4,000/- towards loss of income during the period the appetiant could not attend to his duties; Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses; and Rs.1,000/- for speciaS diet. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation. for the injuries sustained by the appeilant/claimant in the motor accident. The Tribunal further directed payment of interest 6% per annum on the above amount of compensation of Rs.10,000/-. 9. On due consideration of the submissions of leamed counsel for the appeilant and in view of the fact that the appellant/'claimant did not examine any Doctor before the Tribuna! to establlsh that the injuries and fracture sustained by him in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disabtlity, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 10. The appeal fiied by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarity. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Smha Judge subbu