IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA FAO No. 411 of 2006. Date of Decision: 13th September, 2007. Sanjeev Vaidya .. Appellant. Versus Smt. Sankari Devi and others .. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Gupta, Chief Justice. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For respondent No.5: Mr. Praneet Gupta, Advocate, vice Mr. Harish Behl, Advocate. V.K. Gupta, C.J. (Oral) On this appeal coming up for consideration today, after hearing learned Counsel for the appellant as well as learned Counsel for respondent No.5 and upon perusal of the impugned award dated 22nd August, 2006 passed by the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mandi, I feel convinced that the amount of compensation awarded in favour of the appellant (Rs.3500/-), being 50% of the total assessed compensation of Rs.7,000/- cannot be considered as being on the lower side. While deciding issue No.1, learned Tribunal held the appellant guilty of contributory negligence and, therefore, awarded only half of the assessed compensation in his favour. As far as the assessment of the total compensation is concerned, learned Tribunal was helpless in awarding any higher amount of compensation to the appellant because the appellant did not produce any corroboratory or medical evidence to prove or establish that he had 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - received any injury and/or that he had suffered any disability, total or partial, temporary or permanent. Actually the entire case was based upon the ipse-dixit of the appellant himself who appeared as his sole witness with respect to the injury as well as the disability. The only way in which the injuries or disabilities could have been proved was by calling a medical witness. That was not done. No interference is called for. The appeal is dismissed. September 13, 2007 (V.K. Gupta), C.J. (rc)