HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIV!S!ON BENCH CORAM: HOWELE SHRI mJEEV GUPTA. C.J. HON’BLE SHR! SUNIL K 'MAR SINHA, J. Misc Appeai No.188i2604 Anpeiiant Ku. Manisha Dior Late Madhusudan C}a§mam Gandhi, Aged M years, repvresented hereby Mother Manorma Devi Widow of Late Madhusudan Gandhi, Rm ‘Jmage — Khorpa Tahsil — Abhanpur, Distt Raipur (CG) VERSUS Respondents Puran Prakash S/o Sri Bharat Ram Non-appeiiants Sahu Aged abeut R/c Kanidabri, Thane Arjani, Distt Dhamtari, M/s Mehta Enterprises, MG Road, Dhamatari (CG) 2 M/s Mehta Enterprises MG Road Dhamtari (CG) 3 The Orientai insurance Company Limited, Through Divisionai Manager No.2 Sai Nagar - Raipur (CG) Anpeai under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present : Shri SC Verma! counsei for the appeiiant. Shri Vivek Shrivastava, counsei on behalf of Shri Avinash Mishra, counsei for respondent No.3 ORDER (215* Jusy, 2099) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. $hri SC Verma, learned counsel for the appeiiant in view of the fact that the appeal has been reported by the Registry to have been filed within the prescribed period of limitation, seeks ‘7/ permission to withdraw MCP No.1804/2004, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2) Permission granted. 3) MCP No.1804/2004, therefore, is dismissed as withdrawn. 4) Learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5) Appeliant Ku.iVianisha has filed this appeal through her mother Manorama for enhancement of the compensation awarded ' by 6‘“ Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short, “the Tribunai") vide award dated 10102003,. passed in Claim Case Not’l 212003. 6) v As against the compensation of Rs.4,82,00G/'- claimed by the claimants by'filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 06.1 1 .2002, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.15,000/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of tiling of the ciaim petition, tiil the date of actual payment. 7) Shri SC Verma, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.15,000/- only, though the claimant sustained multiple serious r injuries inciuding fractures in the accident. 8) From Para No.13 of the impugned award, we gather that no > X—ray report or disability certificate was produced before the Tribunal to estabiish that the ciaimant had sustained any corresponding fracture in the motor accident or the injury sustained by her in the motor accident resuited in any permanent disabiiity. r 9) In this state of evidence, we do .not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai. padma 10) The appeal, therefore, hereby dismissed is Iiable to be dismissed and is summariiy. f 1 Sd/— Sd/— . _ ‘/' § Sunil Kumarsmha 2 Chief Justice I I ‘ Judge