^HK3H£<KXJ ^lilHI-ljiKlS©^UttiBUifl®IIUR^ w^:'!'iDig^ffliiii^@B^^:?'w^::7r^^^ C6RAM: H@N'Bl-ESHRtSn.)E®(^3Ul>TA.C.J.& siS|lllii(ll^V'l< i!l|Si-StlMj!t,'.). APPEI-I.ANT RESPONDENTS •M.ft^(^.NO.sa'174i^2008'^.'',1.:.--,^:. :::; • -:. !; l^uHh^sh al^ 25 ^rs, S^ ShtePari ^^^ ^ Bungla ^ iSh8nkal^Na®aFiF^puF;t©l^ffi;K^ Versus 1 Subhash (Slwnd [^ra, Son^^^^^^o^ .•l,:.:.';'^l.^(l||ai||^||"iia^iag6!^^!0^^28!^^ ^'"^;^,|t<^||a|^@riwei||il^^Kesini^^agad^^ ;Ai?^.@^ilSjN AIP-:s-'l:^'l^^^:"'® ;(<Siait1Snai(Orissa) 2. Shn Shital Kumar Jain, S/o. | Shri y Risha |l<umaT ^ Kesinga,;VVard^No.4,P.S.Kesin^ s Distrtefl^lahandi<0rissa)ij 3. %e ©nerrtal^ Ireuiai^ Umited, TOroi^h: raylsitinal sMa^^ r |Divisi<ma|i©fBeeNq^Ctiawla^o(n|itex DeyeFidrS Nagar Road, S^^^^^^^^N ^: .•':,:?yRaiR8i^(^G;)^":;):^'i:.':-'. -MISeEI-lJ^NE©U^iSBiBSaiiI^^3;^0!R!lUfeMQ15© ^VEWiiEBsiii ^9S81:il!^.".-.!.<'';i;':''is Rresent: Shri R; Pi^ftarir^an^li^n^ ^...:t?;-"^tap|3®Uar%.',^wi.:%l% ^^ii|iii»||l08^'^:':,:'-..f^.: ^lTe^follo^TO ^o^er^^^^^ l^^^,;^::S^;:SS''©.J^;:,^fc'^ 'w'^%'^t3ilfi®i^1 iiK^^^^^^^^^^ •,:^,3^^8.,;Pi|||t|r),|^||^eGiy|^|lj|BTi^^a||ij^|i^i|^ -on;a(iiTiission.A'^:,:.;<^^^./-^':':^ liBil r>^ 2. This is claimant's appeal for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 12 Additionat Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short "the Tribunal") vide award dated 09.05.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 151/2007. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.46,90,000/- claimed by the appellant/claimant by flling a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 01.03.2007, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.7,69,861/- as compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of the filing of claim petition till the date of actual payment. 4. Shri R. Pradhan, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.7,69,861/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries and fractures sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident. 5. The Tribunal considering the evidence led by the claimant for establishing the expenses on his treatment awarded Rs.66,661/- towards medical expenses; Rs.6,73,200/- for loss of future eaming capacity on account of the permanent disability to the extent of 40% suffered by the appellant/claimant on account of the injuries and fractures sustained in the motor accident; Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering; Rs.5,000/- for attendant; Rs.5,000/- for conveyance; Rs.5,000/- for special diet; and Rs.10,000/- for future treatment. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a total sum of Rs.7,69,861/-. v^"'?SS- -o^ ) nimmi 6. On due consideration, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has been quite liberal in awarding compensation under a!l the permissible heads to the claimant. 7. We, therefore, do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice ^umarSinha s;