; fc a' HIGH GOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASRUR DIVISION BENCH Coram HON'BLESHRIRAJEEVGUPTA.e.J.i HON'BLESHRISUNILKUMARSINHA, Misc. Appea! (C) No. 289 of 2006 Sukesh Shaha aged about 28 yeare Son of Sudhir Shaha, Qccupation Collie Resident of Mana Camp, Tal'isil and District Raipur(C.G.) Versus Bablu Das atias Babul Das, aged about 36 years, son of Niwaran Das, Occupation —-Driver and Owner of;the'truck,resident of P.V.-90 Police Pakl-iankur, Post- Nagladand, ] 'FaBsili Pakhanjur, DistriGtbanter(G.G.) The New India Insurance Gompany limited ^through Divisionat • IVIanager, DivisJonal Office Kacbahari Chowk, Jail Road, Distric{Raipur(C.G.) IVIISCAPPEALUNDERSECTION1730FTHEMOTOR^HSGLE -1:1ACT;-1 :: ' ' •.;': -' ", • ; -,.• .' Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, Searned eouhsel for the appellant. ^ .' NoneTbr respQrident No.1.' -^ : '. ' Shri Dashrath Gupta, learned counsel for respondent No.2. •. . :• ^' '. - r •••.'•< '•••••'•^ sth (15mMax,2009) The fQltowing order of the Court was passed ^Rajeev;Gupta,'C.J.:' > .^' : •:. - ;'-: : '..r ':" •• ;,:-: •,. : , , -: by 1.1) g' Learned cbunsel for the partiesare heard on M.C.P. No. 1785/2006, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, we aresatisfied ttiat the appellant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause forthe dglay in fiting the appeat. 3. M.C.P. No.1785/2006, therefore,isa!lowed and the delay of 48 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learnedi counsel for the appellant is heard on admission. 5. Appellant Sukesh Shaha, is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Eleventh Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raipur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 28.04.2006, passed in Claim Case No. 13/2005. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.7,25,000/- claimed by appelianV claimant Sukesh Shaha by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicies Act for the injuries sustained by him in themotoraccidenton 03.12.2002, the Tribunai*:awarded a total sum of Rs.5,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date offiling of the claim oetition ti!i the date of actual payment. 7. Shri Malay Kumar Bhaduri, learned counsel for the appellant vehementiy argued that the Tribunal has erred. in awarding low compensation of Rs.5,000/- only though the appelianV claimant sustained multiple serious injuries in the motor accident. Eff^'ffijiBHiil 8. From para 16 of the award we gather that the appeilant/ claimant did not examine even himself before the Tribunal in support of his claim. That apart, no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries said to have been sustained by the appellanV ciaimant in the motor accident. 9. In this state of evidence, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarcted by the Tribunal. 10. The appeal, therefore, is tiable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge Sd/- Chief Justice