a HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISG-ARH AT BILASPUR (y Appellant Mehataru Ram Son of Shriram Sahu, aged about 4O years, Occupati0n~ cultivation a5 Transport, R/ o Darripara, Kawardha, Tahsil and Dishict— Kawaldha (C.G.). . e MA. N0. 633 of 2005 Versus Respondents 1. Vijay Singh, S/ o Bhuvan Singh Thaktu‘, aged about 28 years, dn'var of Jai Bhoramdev Traverls Bus No. M.P. 23—J 0183 (new No, C.G. 04 ZA- 0673, R/ o Radhakrishna Ward N0. 1 1, Kawaxdha, Tahsil and District— Kawardha. 2. Rajendra Singh S] o Bhuva11 Singh ’ Thakur, aged 33 years, oWner of Jai Bhoram Dev Travels Kawardha, Bus N0. C.G. O4-ZA 0673, R/o Thakur i Para Sheetla Wafd, Kawatdha, Tahsil and Distn'ct— Kawardha (C.G‘). n 3. Divisional Manager, The On'ental Insurance Company Ltd. Malviya Nagar, Durg, District— Dm‘g (C.G.). DB: Hon’ble Shri Justice S. R. Nayak, OJ, &. Hon’ble Slni Justice Satish K, Agm'hotri, J. Mr. Praveen Kumar Tulsania, Advocate for the appellant. ORAL ORDER ( 211d December 2005) The following order of the Court was passed by S, R. Nayak, C.J, 1. In a personal injury case the injured not being satisfied with the compensation awarded by the M.A,C.T. has prefemed this appeal for more compensation. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that What is awarded towards loss of income for the. laid oE‘period is inadequate and unreasonable. He would also contend that learned M.A,C.T. ought to have awarded compensation towards future medical expenses. We? have perused the record. It is seen that the appellant] injured was inpatient only for 9 days and the M.A.C.T. has awarded Rs. 2000/ — towards loss of income durm'g the laid otf period. It has 10 also awarded Rs. 6000I- towanls special diet for 9 days which undeniably is on higher side. Assuming that the appellant] injured is a conti‘acter and a businessman, what is awarded towards loss of income during 9 days cannot be said to be unreasonable or arbitrary. Even assuming that them is little deficiency in the said amount that is made good by what is awarded towards special nutrition. There is absolutely no legal basis to claim for future medical treatment. We have perused the evidence of P.W.4 doctor. In his evidence he has deposed that the rod is inserted and that in the normal circumstance, that need not be removed. The doctor e‘ a does not say that the appellant requires any future surgery. In the absence of medical evidence, the Tribunal is justiiied in not awarding any compensation towards future medical expense. The appeal is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sdl- Chief Justice " ‘ a Sd/- SATISH K. ANGNll-IOTRI Judge