mH couRT OF CHHTnSGRH AT ILASPUR DMSION BENGH' COram : HON BLE SHRE RAJEEV GUPTA C J & HON’BLE $HRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA J Misc. Appeal {C} No 44 of 2006 PELLANTS 1. Rajeshwan W/o Te} Kumar, aged 25 years. § Gopi S/o Tej Kumar, aged 4 years Mina? Rahu! S/o Te] Kumar aged 2 years Mina? Both Minor through-l mother Rajeshwari Wlo Tejkumar. Ali are Rio Village Nayapara, P.Sr B‘hatapara,, Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur (C.G.) at present vreeiding'at -— Gunjera Chowki Mam, P.S. Nandghat, Tahsi! Nawag‘arh, District Durg (C.G.) Versus 1. Fuisai Gupta Slo Samay Lai Gupta, aged 42 years, Occupation — Driver R/o Viiiage Rajendra Nagar Briaspur district Briaspur (CG) Harjinder Singh Sfo Harvansh Singh, age 45 years, occupation Business (owner of vehicle) Rio viiiage Teiibandha, Raipur! Distric ‘Raipur(c.G.) r Branch Manager United india insurance Comoany Limited Branch Oftice Korba Stadium TP Nagar PS and Tahsii"& District Korba (C G ) Naresh Kumar w/o not known $urieet Singh S/o not known aged 65 years s ATN B AP RESPONDENTS t I” I Both are ihrough Jeevan Bus Servaces Pandn Bus Stand Ramur near Hora Compiex, Ratpur (C G) Insurance @ompany, the Oriental insurance Company, Jai! Road, Kachahari Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicle Act Present: Shri \jlmlesh Bamai learned counsel for the appellants Shr r-l B Agrawal learned Samar ouunsel Wllh Shri Panka] Agrawal learned counsel for respondent No.3. Shrl Ajay Mlshra, learned counsel for respondent No.6. . None for respondents No l 2 4 & 5 ORDER (11m May, 2009) of the Coun 'was passed by The following order Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: Learned counsel for the parties are heard on M.C.P. No. 15?6l2006, a petition for condonation of the delay in filing the appeaL 2. On due consideration, we are satished that the appellants have succeeded in showing sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. 3. M.C.P. No. 157612006, therefore, is allowed and the delay' of 1 7 days in tiling the appeal is hereby condoned. 4. Shri Vimiesh Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellants is heard on admission. 5. The appellants are seeking enhancement of the compensationawarded by the Additional Motor Accidnt Claims e VA 1 l TribunaL Bemetara, Dis‘irict'Durg (fcgxr short ‘the Tribunai’) vide award dated 27.04.2006, passed in Cliaim Case No.92f200'4‘ 1 6. As against the compensatian of {Rs.6,00,000/- ciaimed by the V - V g ’ appellantsl Ciaimants by filing a ciaim Fiietition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for the Intunes sustained by them in the r motor accrdent on 24 O6 2004 the Tnbunal awarded a total sum of Rs.22,500/— as compensation along with interest @ 6% per annum I from the date of fiting of the claim petition til! the date of actual payment. 7. Shrt Vimlesh Bajpai, learned counset for the appeliants vehemently argued that the Tribune! has erred'tn awarding low compensation of Rs.22,506l— though the Claimants sustaid muitiple injuries in the motor accident. 8. For the reasons best known to the appellants / claimants no doctor was examined before the Tribunal to establish the nature of the injuries sustained by the appeltants/ claimants in the motor accident and the fact that those. injuries resulted in any permanent I disability. 9. ln this state of evidence, We do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunai 10. The appeal therefore is liable to be dismissed and Is hereby ti dismissed summarily. g nimmi I ne , so] . Sd/— l ’ ‘ ‘ 5““ " y ChiefJu‘sece “mum udge