^' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J. APPELLANT CLAiMANT Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 544 of 2008 Rajkumar @ Dev Kumar S/o Late Bahoran Lal Rathore, aged about 46 years, r/o Bannak Ghowk, Vitlage Sirgitti, P.S. Tarbahar, Tahsd and District: Biiaspur (CG) RESPONDENTS Versus Naresh Kumar Yadav, aged about 23 years, S/o SukhtaJ Yadav, resident of Tulsi, Post, P.S. Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa (Driver of vehicle Ashok Leyland Truck No.CG 04-G-9112) Gupta Steel Corporation, Ring Road No.2, Raipur (C.G.) (Owner of vehicle - Asftok Leyland TruckNo.CG04-G-9112) 3. National Insurance Company, Raipur Through Manager National Insurance Company, Vyapar Bihar Road, Bhartiya Nagar Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Vehide No. CG-04-G/9112) Memorandum of Misc. Appeal Under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act Present: Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel on behalf of Shri P.S. Chandel, learned counsel forthe appellant. ORDER (25th AprH, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Shri Sunil Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 2. Appellant - Rajkumar @ Dev Kumar is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur, (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 01-03-2008, passed jn Claim Case No. 52/2007. 3. As against the compensation of Rs.23,23,345/- claimed by claimant - Rajkumar @ Dev Kumar, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 19-11-2006, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.25,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum to the claimant. 4. Shri Sunil Sahu, iearned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the compensatjon of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is too low in comparison to the number and nature of the injuries sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident. 5. For the reasons best known to the appellant/claimant, the doctor who is said to have treated the claimant for his injuries was not examined before the Tribunal. No X-ray report was pro,eiuced before the Tribunal to establish that the ctaimant sustained any fracture in the motor accident. No evidence, was (rv^\ led before the Tribunal to establish that the claimant suffered permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained by the claimant. As such, the Tribunal treating the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident as simple injuries, awarded a lumpsum compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 6. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsei for the appellant in the context of the above-mentioned broad features of the case, we are satisfied that the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper compensation in the facts and circumstances of the present case. 7. As we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appeal filed by the appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act for enhancement of the compensation is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge ^bu