w. COURT OF AT CJ. HON'BLE CHANDRAKAR, J MiscADpeal (C) No. 901 of 2010 Appellant Claimant Mohanlal, s/b Mangni Satnami, aged about 36 years, r/o viitage Saragaon, Devgaon, Thana Kharora, District ~ Raipur (CG) Resporidents Non-appiicants Gopai Ram, s/o Guhan Ram Nagarchi, aged about 31 years, r/o Banagarh, Thana Kurud, District Dhamtari, CG Present Address : New Changorabhata Near House of Gopai Sahu, Thana DD Nagar, Raipur(CG) Smt Madhurl Tiwari, w/o GP Tiwari, r/o Civli Llne, KawardS-sa (CG) The Orientai Raipur Ensurance Company iVilssellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of MotorV'ehiclesAct Present : Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri KK Dewangan, counsei for the appeilant. Shri Sudhir Agrawal and Shri P Dutta counsel for respondent No.3. (2nd Septerrsber, 2011) The foSlowlng order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. •'•^ ^ MACNo.901 of 2010 This is claimant's appea) for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the 10 Additiona! Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.03.2008, passed in Claim Case No. 124/2007. 2) As against the compensation of Rs.11,75,838/-, ciaimed by the appeilant/claimant, by fiiing a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehlcles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 12.08.2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.56,170/- as compensation aiong with interest @ 6% perannum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the date of actuai payment. 3) The Tribuna! on a close scrutiny of the entire evidence ied before it held the Oriental Insurance Company LJmited, the insurer of the offending vehicie Tata-Sumo bearing registratlon No.CG 04 B/9076 liable to pay the compensation to the ciaimant. 4) As the insurer of the above offending vehicle Tata-Sumo has not fiied any appea! chalienging the above finding recorded by the Tribunai, the same now has attained ffnality. 5) The Tribunai considering the number and nature of the Injuries proved to have been sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and the amount proved to have been spent on treatment, awarded Rs.37,170/- towards medica! expenses; Rs.9,000/- for loss of Encome during the period of treatment; Rs.5,000/- for conveyance, specia! diet and attendant; and Rs.5,000/- for pain and suffering. The Tribunal, thus, awarded a totai sum of \ MACNo.901 of 2010 Rs.56,170/- as compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident. The Tribunai further directed payment of interest on the above amount of compensation of Rs.56,170/- @ 6% per annum from the date of fiiing of the ciaim petition till the date of actual payment. 6) Shri Satyendra Sahu and Shri KK Dewangan, learned counsei for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding iow compensation of Rs.56,170/- only, though the appellant/ciaimant sustained muitiple serious injuries inciuding fractures in the motor accident. 7) Shri Sudhir AgrawaE and Shri P Dutta, learned counsel for respondent No.3 the Oriental Insurance Company Limited, the insurer of offending vehscle Tata-Sumo, on the other hand contended that the compensation of Rs.56,170/- cannot be termed as inadequate so as to warrant enhancement in this appeai. Learned counsel referring to the document fited by the claimant himself before the Tribunai, the medicai certificate of one Milan Verma, who was said to have been traveiling as piliion rider with the ciaimant on the motorcycle, submitted that the sajd Milan Verma stated before the doctor that he sustained injuries on account of fal! from height and not in a motor accident. 8) Claimant Mohanlat was aged about 36 years on the date of the accldent. He was dealing in buying and seiling of cattle heads. The claimant cialms to have sustained fracture of his left Tibia bone in the motor accident. MACNo.901 of 2010 9) The compensation of Rs.56,170/- awarded by the Tribunal, when examined in the context of the facts that the disability certificate produced by the claimant before the Tribunal was not issued by a medical board; there is no material avaitabie on record to establish that the ciaimant on account of the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident has been rendered unfit to pursue his occupation; and the other surrounding circumstances of the case, we are satisfied, is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case and does not cait for any enhancement in this appeal. 10) As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai, the appeai filed by the appe!!ant/claimant for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 11) No order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge padma