1 ^ //^^ v HSGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT B8LASPUR DIVSSIONBENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRS SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. IViSSELLANEOUS APPEAL (C) No. 1456 of 2008 APPELLANT CLASIV3ANT RESPONDENTS 1 NOM-CLASNANTS Shankar Lai Sinha S/o Shri Mohanlal Sinha, aged about 35 years, R/o Stationpara, Near the Rameshwari Tempie, Mahasamund, Tehsil & District - Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus Motlial Yadav S/o Shri itwari Ram Yadav, aged about 28 years, R/o Bus Stand Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) Through Chandak & Sons, Bus Stand Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) Giriraj Chandak S/o Shri Bittal Das Chandak, aged about 30 years, R/o Chandak & Sons, Bus Stand Mahasamund, District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 3. The Branch Manager, the Orientai insurance Company Limited, through DivisionaE Manager, Dlvisionai Office, Madina Building, Jail Road, Rajpur, District Raipur (C.G.) MEEVIORANDUIVI OF APPEAL UNDER SECTSON 173 OF THE iVIOTORVEHSCLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant. ORDER (11th November, 2008) The foltowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. ^ ^ Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on I.A. No.01/2008, an application for condonation ofdeiay in fifing the appeal. 2) On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3) I.A. No.01/2008, therefore, is ailowed and the delay in filing the appea! is hereby condoned. 4) Shri Shivendu Pandya, tearned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appellant Shankar Lal Sinha is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribuna!, Mahasamund (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 10.07.2007, passed in Ciaim Case No. 132/2006. 6) As against the compensation of Rs.18,80,000/- daimed by the appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19.05.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.64,750/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of the fiiing of ciaim petition tiil the date of actuai payment. 3. Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensatlon of Rs.64,750/- only, though the claimant suffered multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. r~-] E 4. Appellant Shankar Lai Sinha was working as Patwari. Since he was in Government service the amount spent by him on the treatment of the injuries and fractures sustained in the motor accident in a!l probability must have been reimbursed by the State Government. That apart; the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.49,700/- towards medical expenses. Tribunai further awarded a sum of Rs. 15,0007- towards pain and suffering. 5. Shri Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant could not dispute that the appellant inspite of the injuries and /-^— fractures sustained by him in the motor accident, J»is continuing in service as Patwari and has not been denied any promotion or increment on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. Thus, it is apparent that the Enjuries and the fractures sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accldent, has not adversely affected his earnlng capacity in any manner. 6. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the appeilant and the reasonings given in the Impugned award and in view of the above mentioned broad features of the case, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunai. 7. The appeai filed by the appeliant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is iiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summariiy. padma Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sum-fKumarsCnha Judge