Ipill^p^:. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinale Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Aopetlant Resoondents Misc. Appeal No. 1334 of 2007 Manoj Kumar Yadav, S/o Shri Bhagwandin Yadav, Aged aboyt 35 years, R/o Pugaon Naka Chowk. Ganjpara, Durg. Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) Claimant versus 1. Madhav Kumar Pasi, S/o Shri Ram Pasi, Aged about 27 years, FVo Sikolabhatha, Jayanti Nagar, Near Shiy Mandir, Durg, Tahsil & District - Durg ... Driver 2. Tikendra Kumar Dewangan, S/o Shri T.R.Dewangan, R/o Subhash Nagar Durg, Tahsil & Distt. Durg (C.G.) 3. The National Insurance Co. Ltd. - Through its DMsionaJ Manager, Aakash Ganga, Supela, Bhilai, Tahsil & DistriGt Durg (C.G.) ... Insurer Miscellaneous Apoeal u/s 173 of the Motor Vehides Act. 1988 Present: Shri P.R.Patankar, counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 15 ofApril, 2008) ^} 1 Heard on admisston. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 1 1.05.2007 passed m claim case No. 90/2003 by 7th Addttional Motor Acckients Claims Tribunal (F.T.C.), Durg (henceforth the Tribunal) whereby tn an injury case compensation of R?.22,409/- was awarded under the following heads: a) Expense^ incurred in treatment b) Pain and suffering and mental agony. c) Special diet Total Rs.18.409.06 Rs. 3.000.00 Rs. 1.000.00 Rs.22.409.00 3. Shri P.R. Patankar, tearned counsel for the appetlant contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded a sum of Rs.500<y- under the head of mental agony, pain and suffering and ought to have awarded adequate compensation under the head of loss of income and conveyance charges. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute that the appellant/ claimant did not suffer any permanent disability due to the accident and no djsability certificate was filed before the Tribunal. TTie Tribunal has, in paragraph 18 ofthe impugned award, notawarded any amount under tiie head loss of income on the ground that the appellant/claimant did not produce any documentary proof of his being hospitalized for a period of sjx months. In the facts and circumstances of the case, (. am of the considered opinion that for want of any evklence the Tribunal was also justjfied in not awarding any amount towards conveyance charges ateo. In this view of the matter, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 5. The appeal being devorcl of merit js dismissed at the stage of admissfon. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge