^^s^ /^y 1 ^/t5"* ^aACT-gs! ffy^ DIVSSIOM BENCH HON'BLE SKRI T.P. SHAR CLAiMAN' NON-APPLICANTS .A.(C)No.20of200S Minor Mukesh Kumar, Aged about 11 years, Through his Guardian Father Laxman Prasad, S/o. Late . Miiap Sonv/ani, CasSe - Satnami, R/o. Viliage Lamera, P.S. Kota, Tahsii Takhatpur, District Biiaspur (C.G.) 1. Shri Rakesh Kumar Avasthi, S/o. Dwarika Prasad Avasthi, Aged about 38 years; R/o. Lakhengar, Raipur, Tahsli & District Raipur (C.G.) (Driver) 2. Mohandas Manikpuri, S/o. Madhodas Manikpuri, R/o. Sadaipara, Raipur, Tahsil & District Raipur (C.G.) (Owner) 3. The Branch Manager, Nationat Insurance Company Limited, Firsf Fioor 08, India Exchange Place, Cuicutta 700001 (West Benga!) Throuah Local Office, Taha Complex, Vyapar Vihar Road, Silaspur (C.G.) (Insurer) ^ lfS:UI/»( C Ar>T 4000 •rEa^rf^S f^\^ i , E^^u Present: Shri Pawan Kumar Kesharwani, learned counset for the appeilant. (12th January, 2009) The foliowing order of the Court was passed by Ws-—?: 'iiw^- "•• ^ Shri Pawan Kumar Kesharwani, ieamed counset for the appeilant is heard on admission. 2) Appeilant Mukesh, through his father Laxman Prasad is seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Sixth Additional Motor AccicSent Claims Tribunal, Bilaspur (for short 'the Tribunal') vide award dated 27.08.2008, passed in Claim Case No.117/2007. 3) As against the compensation of Rs.6,70,000/- claimed by the appeilant/claimant by fillng a clairn petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehic!es Act, for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident on 02.12.2006, the Tribunal awarded lump sum amount of Rs.50,000/- as compensation along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the ciaim petition till the date of actua! payment. 4) Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appeliant vehemently argued that the compensation of Rs.50,000/- awarded by the Tribunal Is too low in comparison to the serious nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident. 5) For the reasons best known to the claimant, neither any medica! certificate was produced before the Tribunal nor any doctor was examined to establish the nature of the injurles sustained by the appellant/claimant in the motor accident and that those injuries resulted in any permanent disability. 6) In this state of evidence, we do not find any scope for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ^•s^&s>^ iy's~'^*.. /y^. ~'\ S &.-.„„.. 1. j 1 1 ~^~JS V? .^y '"SV.^-:-!!sy \b subbu 7) The appeal filed by the appellanb'ciaimant for enhancement of the compensation, therefore, is liable to be dismissed and is herebv dismissed summarilv. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge ^!»t#,WS s>t»i