IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. A.O. No. 287/2007 Data Ram .. Appellant. Versus Priti Singh and another .. Respondents. Sri S.K. Mandal, learned counsel for the appellant. Sri B.N. Molakhi, learned counsel for respondent No.2. None has appeared on behalf of respondent No.1. Dated: 11.06.2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. This appeal U/S 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act has been preferred by the claimant against the judgment and award dated 20-4-2007, passed by Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/Addl. District Judge/ F.T.C.-I, Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar, in MACT Case No. 166/2006, Data Ram Vs. Priti Singh and another. 2- Brief facts of the case are that on 27-11-2005, when the claimant Data Ram was coming to his shop situated at Main Road Bazpur, from Bazpur market, suddenly a tractor trolley having no registration number, dashed him in a rash and negligent manner. The iron rod hanging outside the trolley, hit the right eye of the claimant due to which his eye was badly damaged. He also sustained injuries on other parts of his body. According to the claimant he used to run the shop of tyre-puncture and now he is unable to do his work due to loss of his eye. Accordingly to the claimant later on he came to know that the tractor was P.B.A. 11/9789. He alleged that he spent about Rs. Two lacs on his treatment. He therefore filed claim petition for a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-. 2 3- The learned tribunal issued notices to the opposite parties, but the opposite parties refused to take the notice, therefore treating the service sufficient upon the opposite parties the tribunal decided the claim petition ex parte against them. 4- The claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and Pawan Kumar as P.W.2. He also filed medical report, prescriptions etc. The learned tribunal after hearing learned counsel for the claimant and considering the entire material available on record, decreed the same for a sum of Rs. 5,000/- against the opposite party No.2, owner of the tractor in question, along with interest @ 7% per annum from the date of filing the petition till the actual date of payment. 5- Feeling aggrieved the claimant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the compensation. 6- Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7- Learned counsel for the claimant/appellant has submitted before me that due to the injury suffered by the claimant in the accident he has lost vision of one of his eye and the doctor also issued a medical certificate paper No. 6-C/6, but the learned tribunal has not considered the same and awarded a meager amount of compensation. Learned counsel, therefore, urged that the compensation should be enhanced. 8- I do not find any substance in the above submission of the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant. The claimant did not make any effort to get the medical certificate paper No. 6-C/6 3 proved by producing the doctor who issued it. Hence the learned tribunal did not rely the said document. However, the medical bills produced by the claimant pertain to Rs. 1,981/- and the learned tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 2,000/- under the head of medical expenses. Further, the tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000/- under the head of mental and physical pain and agony and loss of earning during the period the claimant was treated in the Hospital. The claimant could not establish his case that he in fact spent a huge amount on his treatment and he suffered a greater loss due to the injury sustained by him in the accident. In the above facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find any infirmity in the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned tribunal to the claimant/appellant. The tribunal also awarded interest on the awarded 9- The appeal lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed. 10- Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. ( B.C. Kandpal, J.) ISB