i; WW, V H HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DEVISION BENCH 1 Coram : HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & > HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. MA. No. 720 of 2004 APPELLANT Shyamai Sarkari Slo. Motiran§an Sarkar, aged about 56 years, Occupation Driver, R/o. Village Silfili, RS. Jaynagar, Taxsé: Surajpur, District Surguja (0.6.). CLAIMANT Versus R‘ESPONEEW‘TS: i. Lai Chahc'i, Sic. Shuk‘nram Yaa'av, NON-APPUCANTs aged about 30 years, Oocupation Driver R/o Tilsivan P S & Tahsil Surajpur District Surguia (C G ) \ (DRIVER i i i 2. Pravin Kumar Singh, S/o. Omkar Singh,.aged about 30 years, R/o. Ketka Road Surajpur, P.S. & Tahsii Suraipur, District surguja (C.G.). (OWNER) 3. The Oriental insurance Company, Ltd. Through Branch Manager, Branch Office Manendragarh Road, Near Ambedkar Chowk, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja (0.6.) a (INSURER) MISCELLAEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 173 OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT,1988. i Shri Ashok Kumar Shukia, learned counsei for the appellants“ O R D E R (1‘9“ November, 2mm The following order of the Court was passed by ; Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: ) Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the appeliant i heard on admission. s ) S r e 2 Appenant hyamal Sakar is seeking nhancement of the c mpensation awarded by the Third Additional Motor Accident Ca ga ( ims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Suruj, for short ‘the Tr vi ibunal‘) de award dated 31.03.2004, passed in Claim Case 9/2DO3. )‘ aoai ti s 5 00 0 aimed bv 3 As nst the compensaon of R 06l- cl t elnt/clmant by ng cim peon under Secn 166 ' he anplaai fili a ai titi tio f e hic t injri ai hi i he o th Motor Veles Ac for the ues sustned by m n t tor acent on 26.05.2002: the Tunal awarded a lump-sum mo cid rib o Rs.1 5,000/— as compensation to the claimant along with interest f @ t ti 9% per annum from he date of filing of the claim petition, li te date of actal ayment. h u p Shri Ashok Kumar Shla, Ieamed counset for the appellant 4) uk vhementiy argued that the Tribunal ha erred in awarding low mpensan of R 1 OOI- only though the appeiiant sustned cotio s 5 O ai ulple seous s n the motor aen mti ri iniurie i CCidt 5 F the reasons best known to the appellanuclaimant, no ) or dctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish he nature of o t te injuries sustained by the appellant the motor acdent and tat ose injuries resultedjn any permanent disability. 6 ln this state of evidence, we do not find an scope for ( ehancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribuna. n l NN l e s h in ci h th ) y 7) of he‘reb A. y dismissed summarily . ~ r ‘ ‘ g 1 1 1 ‘ N \ The appeal filed by the appellant/claimant for enhancement the compensation, therefore, is iiabie to b‘e dismiss (/ Sél‘ Sdl- Chief Justice ii it i i ed a‘nd is Kumar S‘“ha T Sun“ Judge / 1,