IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA FAO No.47 of 2005. Date of Decision: 21.8.2009. Balbir Singh …. Appellant. Versus. Kuldeep Kumar and others …. Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No For the Appellant: Mr.Shrawan Dogra, Advocate with Mr.Umesh Shyam, Advocate. For the Respondents: Ms.Ambika Kotwal, vice counsel for R-2. Mr.Pritam Singh, counsel for Respondent-3. Deepak Gupta, J.(oral) By means of this appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the claimant) has claimed enhancement of compensation. It is not disputed that the claimant who was aged about 56 years at the time of the accident suffered some injuries in a motor vehicle accident involving bus No.HP-55-1994. After trial the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.5000/- as compensation to the claimant. Hence, the present appeal. I have heard Sh.Shrawan Dogra, learned counsel for the claimant and Sh.Pritam Singh, learned counsel for respondent No.3. The only question to be decided is that what is the compensation to which the claimant is entitled to. Unfortunately, the claimant was very lax while leading evidence and proper evidence has not been led in the case. 2 PW-1 Dr.S.K. Sharma initially treated the claimant immediately after the accident at Nadaun on 26.12.2001. He has proved the medico legal certificate Ext.PW-1/A which shows that three injuries were suffered by the claimant. The second injury was only abrasions. One injury was in the nose and one in the lumbar region. X-ray was advised in respect of these two injuries. After receipt of report of the Radiologist it has been noted in the MLC that as per Radiologist’s opinion there is a fracture of nasal bone and hence injury No.1 is stated to be grievous. However, as per the Radiologist’s opinion no fracture was detected on the lumbar region and therefore injury No.3 was declared to be simple. The main claim of the petitioner is that he received spinal injury and his vertebra got fractured and due to this he cannot stand and sit. Though according to the petitioner he is suffering from such ailments, the Doctors produced by the claimant do not support his version. As already submitted above, PW-1 has only proved MLC and even if the contents of the MLC are read in toto all that it shows is that the petitioner suffered a grievous injury of fracture of nasal bone and some injury to the lumbar region and this second injury did not lead to any fracture. PW-6 Dr.N.S. Dogra has issued the disability certificate Ext.PW-6/A. According to this disability certificate the petitioner has permanent mild disability to the extent of 20%. This witness in cross examination has clearly stated that this disability is due to fracture of 4th number vertebra. The witness in cross examination also states that the earning capacity of the claimant has not been diminished in any manner by the injury. These are the statements of the witnesses produced by the claimant himself. Therefore, it is obvious that no monetary loss has been caused to the petitioner on account of loss of income. The disability certificate has not been related to the injuries alleged to have been suffered in the accident. As noted above in the medico legal 3 certificate it is clearly mentioned that no fracture was detected in the lumbar region. The disability certificate is in respect of a specific fracture to L-4 vertebra. The petitioner has failed to connect this injury with the accident and this injury might have been suffered by him after the accident. Having held so, I am still of the opinion that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is extremely low. The learned Tribunal did not take into consideration the fact that the petitioner has suffered grievous injury inasmuch as his nasal bone was fractured. The petitioner also suffered some injury to the spinal region even though it has not been proved to be a fracture. The petitioner has unfortunately not produced any record of the amount spent on his treatment and therefore the entire compensation has to be assessed on the basis of calculated conjectures. Keeping in view all these factors, I feel that the petitioner must have spent at least Rs.2500/- on medical expenses and he might not be able to work for few days and is held entitled to another sum of Rs.2500/- on this account. In addition thereto the petitioner has suffered a fracture to the nose and injury to the back and a sum of Rs.10,000/- is awarded on this count. The petitioner is held entitled to Rs.15,000/- in all. The compensation is accordingly enhanced from Rs.5000/- to Rs.15,000/-. On the enhanced amount the petitioner is awarded interest @ 6% from the date of award i.e. 3.6.2003 till deposit/payment of the amount. The Insurance Company is directed to deposit the enhanced amount along with interest in the Registry of this Court within 8 weeks from today. The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms with no orders as to costs. August 21, 2009. ( Deepak Gupta ), PV Judge.