@[ ^ ^ :© HIGH COUFIT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIViSiONBENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA, J. APPELLANT CLAIMANT MtSC. APPEAL (C) No. 422 6f 2009 Meera Bai, W/o Parmeshwar Mahara, aged about 28 years, Caste - Mahara, Occupation- Labour, R/o at Village Marvahi, PS. & Tah. - Marvahi, DJstt. - Bilaspur(C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS Non-applJcants (Driver) (Owner) (Insurer) 1. Ashik Ali, s/o Gayasuddin Ansari, aged about 31 years, R/o village Bachor, Thana-t Amaliya, Distt- Sidhi (M.P.) 2. Ms. Shri Ram Construction Company Manendragarh, Distt. - Koria (C.G.) 3. The United India Insurance Company Ltd.j(Branch Offjce) Near Ram Mandir, Ambikapur MEIVIO OFAPPEAL UNDERSECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri A.V. Sridhar, learned counsel for theappellant. ORDER (27th March,2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Shri A.V. Sridhar, learned counsel forthe appellant is heard on I.A. No.01/2009, an application for condonatipn of delay in filing the appeal. Y  £? 2. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellant has succeeded in showing suffident cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. I.A. No.01/2009, therefore, is allowed and the delay in filinQ the appeal is hereby corsdoned. 4. Learned counse! forthe appellant is heard on admission. 5. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal, Pendra Road, District - Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 07.11.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 17/2007. 6. As against thecompensation of Rs.4,65,000/- claimed by appellant/claimant by filing a claim petition under Section 166of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 27.01.2007, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.2,100/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri A.V. Sridhar, learned counsel for the appeltant vehementiy argued that the compensation of Rs.2,100/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident. 8. For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanVclaimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resuited in any permanent disability. ^-^ '\. subbu 9. We, therefore, do not flnd any fault in the approach of the Tribunal in treating the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant in the accident as simple in nature and awarding compensation accordingly. 10. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The appeal, therefore, is liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissedsummarily. Sd/- Chiefjustice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge