/: IN_THE_H.ON'BLE_HI_GH_CQURTQF CHHATriSGARH AT BILASPUR rc.G.)' M. A. (CVNO. 3^2- OF 2008 B t; "^. 'i-: APPELLANT CLAIMANT SPONDENTS /' .^•:^ ^'l. ^r-- r^T-- t'^-€ .^ ^^.^ ^ST .^•r^V- '/ 2. 3. ^Smt. Budhiya Bai Wife of Banshital, aged about 40 years, Resident of Bilha, Police Station Bilha, Tahsil and District Bilha, Bitaspur (C.G.). VERSUS Dilip Singh Uikey Son of Bankelal Uikey, Caste Gond, aged aboyt 27 years, Resident of Village Bundela, Police Station Chakerbhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.). (Driver of the vehicle) .Rajesh Kumar Kaushik Son of Laxman Kaushik, aged about 27 years, Resident of Village Bundela, Post Bartori, Tahsil Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.). (Owner of the vehicle) The Branch Manager, Info Tokiyo General Insurance Company Limited, Third Floor Shop No. 345- 347, Lalganga, Shopping Mal, G.E. Road Raipur (C.G.). (Insurer) '17 M EMO OF APPEAL UNDER SECTIOK173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLE ACT,1988 A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR DiVjSiQNBENCH Coram 'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & 'BLE SHRI SUNiL KUMAR SINHA, J. CLAIMAN' RESPONDENTS A. (ONo. 352 of 2008 Smt. Budhiya Bai Wife of Banshiia!, aged about 40 years, Resident of Biiha, Police Station Biiha, Tahsi! and District Bilha, Bilaspur (C.G.). Versus 1. Dilip Singh Uikey Son of Bankelat Uikey, Caste Gond, aged about 27 years, Resident of Village Bundela, Police Station Chakerbhatha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver of the vehicle) 2. Rajesh Kumar Kaushik Son of Laxman Kaushik, aged about 27 years, Resident of Village Bundeia, Post Bartori, Tahsi! Bilha, District Bilaspur (C.G.) (Owner of the vehicte) 3, The Branch Manager, info Tokiyo Genera! Insurance Company Limited, Third Fioor Shop No.345-347, Lalganga, Shopping Mal, G.E. Road Raipur (C.G.) (Insurer) APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. \ Present: Shri Ratnesh Kymar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant. ORDER $ 12th Noveinber, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Learned counsel for the appeliant is heard on admisslon. \ i'^""^ ify"s:k ^ 1^<^ ^eg^-^'' ^ 2) Tribunal's records perused. 3) Appellant Smt Budhiya Bai is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.12.2007, passed in Claim Case No.86/2006. 4) As against the compensation of Rs.5,55,000/- claimed by the appellanVciaimant by filing a claim pet'rtion under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by her in the motor accident on 10.03.2006, the Tribunal awarded a tota! sum of Rs.9,500/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition, till the date of actual payment. 5) Shri Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.9,500/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the appellanVclaimant in the motor accident. 6) For the reasons best known to the claimant, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature ofthe injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident and that these injuries resulted in any permanent disabiiity. The claimant did not even produce any bills or vouchers to establish the amount spent on her treatment. 7) On dueconsideration of the submisstons of learned counsel for the appellant; the findings recorded by the Tribunal; and the aoye mentioned broad features of the case, we do not find any ? 1 'Y t~^—-1<-' scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8) The appeal filed by the appellant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismlssed and is hereby dismissed summarilv. . Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge padma