HIGH COURT OF CKHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MIsCELLANEOUs APrEAL no. 806/2005 B APPELLANT Ramsingh Sarthi, Aged about 30 years, ‘ S] o. Jagmohan Sarthi, Occupation : Labour, R/o — Rasni, RS. Arang, Tab. 8a Distt -’ Raipur KEG.) CLAIMANT VERSUS RESPONDENTS/ 1. Ramavtar, Aged about 3O Years, S/o‘ NONAPPLICANT ’ Deviprasa, Occupation ——Driver, R/o —- V ‘ Gogaon, Distt - Raipur (C.G.) t 2. Ratanlal Duggar, aged about 58 Years, S/o. Mangiial Duggar, Occupation — Owner of Tata 407, R10 —— Amit Entergn‘ises gudiyan' Padav, Tah.‘ 5.5 Distt. a Raipur (C.G.) The Oxyental Insmance Co. Ltd, through Divisional Manager, Divisional Office No.-Ii Sainagar, Devandra Nagar Road, Raipur (C.G.} Miscéllaneous Appeal undu/section 173 Motor Vehicle Act‘1988‘ D.B. Hon’ble Shri Justice Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon’ble Shri Justice T.P. sharma, JJ. Presentz~ Shri A.S. Singlaul, Advocate with Shxi S.C. Verma, Advocate for the appellant. Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate with Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for Iespondent No. 3, None for respondents No. 1 & 2, though sewed. ~ ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 15/ 01 I2009i Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. 1. Learned counsel for the parties axe heard on M.(C.)P, No. 1116/ 2005, which is an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. According to the oEee repoxt, the appeal is barred by 25 > days of limitation. Mwrxné/ m§xq$§ r u“ «W r . E 3. On due consideration of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, we are satisiied that the appellant has been able to explm'n the delay in mjng the appeal. 4. Accoxdingly, M. (C.)P. No. 111612005 is allowed and the delay in iiling the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. l Learned counsel for the parties are also heatd on admission. 6. Appellant] claimant Ramsingh Sarthi has med this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded in claim case 1 'No. 41/2004 by the 13th Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal ' (F.T.C.) Raipur vide award dated 24/ 2/ 2005 on account of h‘acture of left hand and some other injuries sustained by the appellant] claimant in the accident on 2/6/2003 as he had nled a u claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act and claimed compensation of Rs. 9,50,000/ -. 7. Though the appellant/claimant pleaded that he sustm‘ned many injun'es on back, chest and other parts of the body and he also sustained fracture on his left hand and spent Rs. 30-40 thousand in is treatment but no doctor was examined to prove the injuries‘ sustained by the claimant. The learned Claims Tribunal considering various bills] cash memos produced by the appellant allowed a sum of Rs. 1900]- towards payment of the medicine and Rs. l0,500]- towards the fees of the treating doctor. By rounding—up the said amount, the tribunal awarded Rs. 12,000]- towards medical expenses, Rs. 5,000]- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 3,000]— towards loss of estate. The tribunal thus awarded Rs. 20,000] a to the appellant] claimant as compensation for the injuries sustained by him 7 \T‘Vd’ in the motor accident. The tribunal also awarded interest @ 7% per E 1 r\.\” \ \ \ \\ \.\ h $ annum on the said amount of compensation E0111 the date of filing of v claim petition till its realization. E 8. O‘n due consideration of the contains of the entire award and the arguments advanced by the leained counsel for the appellant that a low amount has been awarded to the appellam on account of the injuries sustained by him, we do not lind any scope for enhancement of the amount of the compensation in the facts and circumstances of a the case. g 9. V The appeal has no merits, the same deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. sd/— _ Sunil Kumar Sinha ‘ ‘i Sd/' Judge “7’ ” T. P. Sharma a P Judge ‘ r W Tiwari