^ s HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon' ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, J Misc. Appeal (Cl No. 1346 of 2007 Appellant Bhagesh Chawda, S/o. Shri Dayaram Chawda, aged about 35 years, r/o. Block Colony Gundardehi, Tahsil & P.S. Gunderdehi, Distt. Durg (CG). .. Claimant. 'l Respondents ^' Vs. 1 Birendra Kumar Pal, s/o. Shri Gayadin Pal (Gadriya), R/o. Ashoka Transvej Service Pvt. Ltd., Opposite Balaji Petrol Pump, Bhanpuri, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (CG). Driver of the vehicle. Ashok Transvej Service Pvt. Ltd., through the Director, Rakesh Kumar Agrawal, S/o. Keshav Kumar Agrawal, R/o. Ashoka Transvej Service Pvt, Ltd., Opposite Balaji Petrol Pump, Bhanpur, Raipur, Tahsil & Distt. Raipur (CG). .... Owner of the vehicle. National Insurance Company Ltd., 7- E, Jhandepalan, New Delhi through Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Ltd., Askash Ganga, Sup^la, Bhilai, Tahsil & District Durg (CG). Insurer. (Appeal underSection 173ofthe Motor Vehicle Act, 1988) Present: Shri P.R. Patankar, counsel for the appellant. Shri Raj Awasthi, counsel for respondent No.3. ^^y^ /^"^•k p?«^>-<;.,<•. V53l ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 26th day ofAugust, 2010) By this appeal, appellant/claimant - Bhagesh Chawda seeks enhancement of the compensation awarded by XII Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Durg (for short, "the Tribunai") vide award dated 20-8-2007 passedin Claim Case No. 66of2007. As against the compensation of Rs.9,80,000/- claimed by the appellanVclaimant, by filing a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 4-4-2006, the Tribunal awarded a total sum of Rs.29,893/- as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annumfrom the date of filing ofthe daim petition till the date of actual payment. Shri P.R. Patankar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently argued that the Tribunal has erred in awarding low compensation of Rs.29,893/-toclaimant Bhagesh Chawda. Per contra, Shri Raj Awasthi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 Insurance Company hassupported the award and contended that the compensation of Rs.29,8987- awarded by the Tribunal is just and proper in the facts and circumstances ofthe present case. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused th^ award of thetribunal. Claimant/appellant Bhagesh Chawda though pleaded before the Tribunal that he had sustained multiple injuries including fractures in the motor accident, no documents were produced before the Tribunal to establish that the claimant sustained any permanent disability in the motor accident. Therefore, the tribunal held that the claimant could not establish thaf the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident resulted in any permanent disability. r ;1;^\ l?^Ki | J /7 Raju 7. On due consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the reasonings given by the Tribunal in the impugned award and the fact that no documents regarding permanent disability were produced before the Tribunal, 1 do not find any good ground for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 8. The appeal filed by the claimanVappellant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore,is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge