MACApp. 29/2002 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. J. Singh, learned Sr. counsel for the appellant and Mr. S. Dutta, lear ned counsel for the respondents. This appeal is preferred against the judgment and award dated 7-3-2001 passed by Member, MACT, Golaghat in MACT Case No. 94 of 1999 whereby and whereunder an am ount of Rs. 12,000/- only in all is awarded as compensation to the claimant-appe llant, Sri Keshab Bora. The facts involved in this appeal is that the appellant while proceeding with bi -cycle from Rongamati Bazar towards Dadhora Charali through National Highway-37, on 17-3-1999 he was knocked down by a mini truck bearing registration No. NL-04 /A-2351 as result of which he sustained injuries on his person. He was treated a t Dergaon Civil Hospital as well as Golaghat Civil Hospital. On account of suste ntion of injuries due to vehicular accident on the date as indicated above, the appellant filed a claim petition claiming Rs. 1,00,000/- as compensation. It wou ld be appropriate to state that while under going treatment at hospitals he had under gone different examination like x-ray etc.. Pursuant to the notice, the ow ner of the vehicle Shri Pradip Rathi and the driver Shri Kartik Das appeared but did not contest the case. However, the insurance company, namely, Oriental Insu rance Co. Ltd, the insurer of the offending vehicle contested the claim but did not adduce any evidence whatsoever. To support the claim, the claimant put himse lf in the witness box as PW-1. He supported his case saying that while proceedin g from Rongamati Bazar to Dadhora Charali through National Highway-37 he was kno cked down by the offending vehicle which was duly insured with the respondent N o. 1 herein and sustained injury. During his examination he also proved some doc uments like prescription, admission receipt (Golaghat Civil Hospital) and some o ther cash memos in respect of purchase of medicine including a document issued b y Kalpa Restourant, Station Road, Golaghat. This appeal is preferred because, the compensation, which has been awarded by th e tribunal is on the lower side, which requires enhancement/modification in view of the facts and grounds contended in the appeal. The learned tribunal while de ciding the claim petition gives reasons that the claim so made by the appellant herein is not substantiated by any cogent and sufficient evidence whatsoever tho ugh the appellant claimed that he sustained injuries on his person due to vehicu lar accident. The doctor, who examined him and issued the certificate in respect of injuries has been withheld by the appellant. Learned tribunal, therefore, fi nding no other alternative came to an opinion that in absence of evidence of the doctor who examined the appellant, the nature of the injury sustained cannot be determined by the court inasmuch as court cannot act as an expert in medical sc ience. In view of the facts and evidence offered, the learned tribunal accepted that on account of vehicular accident the appellant sustained injuries that too in simple nature. In regard to the medical expenses claimed through documents ex hibited during inquiry the tribunal held that such cash memos showing purchase o f medicines being not supported by any prescription(s), requirements of those me dicines in the treatment of the appellant is doubtful. From the records maintain ed by the tribunal, this court has not found any documents suggesting purchase of medicines as indicated in the cash memos the amount indicate therein cannot b e considered. The learned member rightly rejected the cash memos. In respect of expenditure made for stayal of the appellant at Golaghat, the document which had been issued by Kalpa Restaurant, Station Road, Golaghat was also not taken into consideration inasmuch as the author was not brought unto the witness box duri ng inquiry. On account of non-examination of the doctor and also the author of t he receipt, the tribunal held that the claim of the appellant cannot sustain to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The tribunal, therefore, taking into consideration a ll the matters in its entirety, more particularly sustention of injury that too simple in nature (in the consideration of the tribunal) due to vehicular acciden t awarded a lump sum amount to the tune of Rs. 12,000/- with 9% interest per ann um from the date of filing of the claim. Mr. J. Singh, learned Sr. counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submits that the award being on the lower side, in view of the sustention of fracture i njury, the tribunal ought to have awarded the compensation per 2nd schedule of t he Motor Vehicles Act. This being not done by the tribunal, this court upon cons ideration of the report submitted by the medical officer that the appellant suff ered fracture injury, the compensation awarded by the tribunal can be enhanced. This submission cannot be taken into consideration in absence of evidence of the doctor concerned since neither the tribunal nor this court is an expert in medi cal science. Had the fact been proved by producing the doctor in the witness box there would have been no impediment in awarding the compensation in a higher si de. We have already indicated that the claimant-appellant also failed to prove a ny supporting documents in respect of medical expenses. Therefore, the claim on the basis of the documents which, do not have any basis cannot be accepted. The learned tribunal rightly awarded the compensation at Rs. 12,000/-. Mr. Dutta, learned counsel appearing for and on behalf of the respondents also s ubmits that no error and illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in awardi ng the compensation at Rs. 12,000/-. This court sees no ground to interfere with the judgment and award. Having taken care of all the matters in its entirety as well as submissions adva nced by the learned counsel for both the parties, this court is of the considere d view that this appeal does not carry any merit and it is accordingly dismissed . Appeal stands disposed of. No cost.