HE@§“§ {SGURT Q? $HH£ET§EE36ARH AT EELASPQR awmcaw EENmmE CQRQM: HGWBLE SHE! QAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRE IPSHARMA, J, WSC QPFEJ’EL N£J.’§?’§ 0f EQMv gAFP§LL§N‘? Way Kumar S/o Sri Ki$ La}, CLAQMAN? Omupaiwn : Agricuiture, Rio Viiiage — Jam/ay, Thana — Amanaka; Tahsi': & Distt — Raipuar {CG} \Eewug §§$F0wagm$ 1‘ Fooi Kumar Kewat 3/0 Sri Rupnaih NQIki-APPLmMxsa Kewa’n Ageé 3mm:- 32 yéai’sq Qccum€i9n — Driver, Ric Khursipar —— Bhiiai. TahsH 8c Di$tt Burg (CG) 2. VSita Ram Sahu SAC! Sri Mansha Ram Sam, Occupai§0n — VehEsSQe Owner, R/G Dabrapara - Ehiiai, ThanE BhiEai Di$tt w mug (CC?) The Grientai insuranca Company Limited, Through : D§visi0nal Manager, DivigEonm Omce ~7K&cha’har% Chewk, Jail Road ~— Raipur (CG) §§JE$C £§PE§§L LiNiQER SE5E0§§1 ‘§?’3 iii§$TQR VEH‘ICLE JAG? ’ifuw‘ h7g7 b Prasan‘t: Shri 3C. Verma and Shfi AL. Singraui. ieamed courxsei for the appellant. OJ QR§ER {’alwth ‘ m Jgnuaa’y, 2mm) Tha f9liowing order of the Calm was passed by Rageéav Gama Ci” ‘ @ SM SC. Verma, ieamed ceunsel for the appe§§ant is heard 0n M.(C.)P. No.1083l2904, a petition for condonaiion of the détay tn filing the appeat. 2) On due canstdetation; M.(C.)P. Na.1083/20G4 is allowed and the delay in filing the appeal is hereby condmed. 3) Shri Sf; Verma, teamed counsel fer the appellant ie heard on admtssten. 42L) Appellant Vijay Kumar le seeking enhancement 43f the oompensatlonawarded by the First Additional Meter Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (fur short “the Tribunal”) vide awam‘ dated 1 1 £82903, passed in Claim Case Nei’i36/20D2. ‘ {5) As against the compensation of Rs.5,25,00{)!— claimed by twe aepelleni/cleiment, by fiiing a claim petition under Sectien 166 e the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the meter accident 0e 16.95.2002, the Tribunai awarded a total sum or” Re,2,0G0f- as compensation along with interest @ 5% per ennum from the date of filing ot the claim petition tilt the date of ectuel payment. 8) Shri SC. Verma, learned counsel for the appeilent vehemently argued that the Tribunal hae erred in ewerding low compensation of Rs.2,000r- only though the appellant/claimant sustained multiple injuries in the motor accident. E’) For the reasons best known to the appellantlclaimant, no Erector was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature t‘. cf the injuries $aid t0 have been gustaneé by the eppeéleniiclaimant in the meter accidené and i’he fact than thoee injurigs Aeswted in any permanent disabi!ity. 3} in Wis $tate of evidence, we do mi find any 5cope for enhancement 0f the compensatien awarded by the Tribunai. 9) The appea! fHed by the appeSiant/ciaimant for enhancement 0? the compensation, therefore, is lEab!e to be dismissed and is subbu hereby niemissed summarily. M v - ..‘..‘‘ ‘ , ":' v/” x . sdl_ i ‘ - ' " mef‘Jusucé Sd/- i 'T.P.