^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISIONBENCH CORAIVi: HON'BLE SHRi RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. HON'BLE SHRS SUNIL KUIVIAR SINHA, J. APPELLANT CLAIMANT M.A. (Cl No.583 OF 2006 Versus RESPONDENTS 1 2. Lalit Kumar Bhuarya, Son of Shri Mangloo Bhuarya, aged about 35 years, Resident of Avenye-B, Street No.4-A, Sector-6, Bhiiai, Poiice Station Bhifainagar, DEstrict Durg (C.G.) Nand Kumar, Son of Shir Nahasingh Gond, aged about 40 ysars, Resident of Vlllage Donar, PpEice Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari (C.G.) (DRiVER) Ashok Chandrakar, Son of Shri Arjun Singh Chandrakar, ^ged about 39 years, R^sident of Near Gajanand Mandir, New Amapara, Durg (C.G.) (OWNER OF THE OFFENDING TRACTOR N0. M.P.-23/G/3045 M8SCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 173 OF THE NOTORVEHSCLEACT. 1988 Present: Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counse! forthe appeIJant. ORDER (10th February, 2009) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. Learned counsei for the. appeiiant is heard on MCP No.158/2007, a petition for condonation ofthe delay in filing the appeal. 2. On due consideration, we are satisfiedthat the appeilant has succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in fiiing theappeai. ^ ^.^» ^ 3. MCP No. 158/2007, therefore, is affowed and the delay in fiiing the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri P.P. Sahu, iearned counsel for the appeiiant is heard on admission. 5. Appellant - Lalit Kumar Bhuarya is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Durg (for short 'the Tribunal'), vide award dated 05.08.2006, passed in C'aim Case No. 176/2004. 6. As against the compensation of Rs.8,05,000/- ciaimed by the appellant/cialmant by filing a claim petition under Section 1 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident and the damagei^ caused to his Hero Honda motorcycle, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.33,240/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing ofthe claim petition till the date of actual payment. 7. Shri P.P. Sahu, learned counsel for the appeiiant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding !ow compensation of Rs.33,240/- only. 8. The Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.10,240/- towards Eoss of income for the period the daimant remained under treatment and could notattend to his duties; Rs.3,000/- towards special diet^fhe Tribunal thus awarded a total sunr of Rs.33,240/- as compensation to the clalmant, 9. For the reasons best known to the appeilant/claimant, no evidence was led before the Tribunai to establish that the injuries said to-have been sustained by the appellanVclaimant in the motor accident resuited in any permanent disabitity. 10. In this state of evidence, we do not find any scope for enhancement ofthe compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 11. The appeal, therefore, ss liabie to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- ChiefJustice padma Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge