'vN^ 7^') 1^ ^- ^10/ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH ATBILASPUR DiVISION BENCH Coram APPELLANT CLAIMANT RESPONDENT HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRS T.P. SHARMA, J. M.A. (C) PR No. 3412 of 2007 Ganesh Ram, Son of Shri Kishunram Gaikwad, aged about 36 years, Occupation Carpenter, Resident of ViJlage and Post Kopra, Rajim, Presently residing at Devpuri, Police Station Tikrapara, Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) Versus Chandraprakash, Son of Ghanshyam Sahu, aged about 24 years, Resident of Village and Post Jogidipa, PoJice Station Rajim, District Raipur (C.G.). (Driver and Owner of offending vehicle No. C.G.-04/CF/6603) IVIEMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTORVEHSCLESACT Present: Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appeilant. ORDER (05th March, 2QQ9) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counsei for the appellant Is heard on admission. 2) Appellant - Ganesh Ram is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 9th Additional Motor Accident CIaims Tribunai (F.T.C.), Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 25.07.2007, passed in Claim Case No.06/2007. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.7,20,000/- claimed by appellant/cjaimant - Ganesh Ram by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 06.08.2006, the Tribunat awarded a total sum of Rs.23,421/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5 % per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition tiil the date of actual payment. 4) Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.23,421/- only, though the appellant/ctaimant sustained muttiple serious injuries in the motor acddent. 5) The Tribunai awarded Rs.16,421/- towards medical expenses; Rs.2,000/- towards special diet and Rs.5,000/- on account of grievous injury. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.23,421/- as compensation to the claJmant. 6) For the reasons best known to the appetiant/claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunai to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident and the fact that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 7) In this state of evidence, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8) The appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. ______ Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge