HIGH COURT OF CHHATFISGARH AT BILASPUR M.A. No. 482 of 2005 Appellant Ku. Kavita Sao, age 17 years, (Minor) daughter of Shn' Ram Krishna Eahu, Through her father Shri Ram Kn'shna Sahu, S/o Late Bhuneshwar Sao, age 45 yeam, R/o Gayatn' Chowk, Ward No.5, Nayapara, Mahasamund, District- Mahasamund (C.G.). . Respondents: 71. Girdhan' Lal Sahu, age 25 yeaxs, S/o Mehtaru Sahu, R/o Village —- Boriajhar, P.S. Mahasamund, District— Mahasamund (C. G.) (Driver of the Tractor No. C.G. 06/A/ 2 180). - Versus- The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Branch O$ce, ‘Raipur, District -Rajaur (insurance Company of Tractor No. C.G. 06/A] 2180). Shyam Kumar Sakarkar, S/o MadhoramSakarkar, R/ o Village— Bon'ajhar, RS. Mahasaxnund (C.G.) (Owner of the Tractor No. C.G. 06/A/2180). DB: Hon’ble Shri Jush'ce S. R. Nayak, C.J. 85 Hon’ble Shn' JuStice Satish K. Agnihotri, J. . Jamil Akhter Lohani, Advocate for the appeHant. ORAL ORDER ( 28th November 2005) In a personal injury case, the injured has hled this appeal for enhancement of the compensauon Counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the father of the appellant has spent more than Rs. 1,00,000/- towards medical expenses Whereas the Tribunal has awarded only sum of Rs. 50,000] -. It wasaalso argued that the Tribunal was not justined in not awarding any compensation towards future medical expenses to be incurred by the appellant. Having perused the impugned award and other E”'wy material papers, we do not bd any lsgal basis to sustain the above arguments of learned counsel. This is a case where the appellant has pmduced the medical bills for Rs, 40,000/— only. Nevertheless, the Tribunal has awaxded Rs. 50,000/- towards medical expenses. Therefore, no exception can be taken for that pelt of the award. Coming to the contention of learned counsel that the Tribunal is not justined in not awarding any compensan'on for future medical expenses, su$ce it to state that in the instant case, the appellant has not even examined the doctor who treated the appellant. There is total lack of evidence to show that the appellant requires future medical treatment or to show what can be the cost of such treatment. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever in that regard it could not be said that the Tribunal is not justified in not awarding any compensation towards future medical expenses. No other point was urged before us while assailing the awaid. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. Sdl- Satish K Agnihon'i Judge Sdl- Chief Justice Judge