MACApp. 96/2004 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MADAN B LOKUR The appellant is aggrieved by an order dated 22/5/2004 passed by the Motor Accid ent Claims Tribunal, Kamrup in MAC Case No. 1491/2003. The appellant had suffered some injuries in an accident. According to him, he ha d sustained injuries on his rib, wrist, forehead, foot etc and had to remain in hospital for seven days. However, he was not able to produce any evidence of his hospitalization. The appellant did produce a medical certificate in which it is stated that the a ppellant had suffered dislocation of the wrist joint, suspected fracture of the 9th rib, swelling over his forehead, lacerated injuries on his left ankle joint and multiple achymosis over the body. However, the doctor who had given the Medi cal Certificate was not produced by the appellant as a witness. The appellant also produced certain cash memos to show that he had purchased som e medicines for Rs. 10,511/-. The Tribunal found that two of the two cash memos totaling Rs. 3924/- did not contain the signature of the pharmacist who had issu ed them and disallowed the claim based on these two cash memos. Thus the Tribuna l deducted Rs. 3,924/- from the claim for purchase of medicines i.e. Rs. 10,511/ - and awarded Rs. 6587/- as pecuniary damages. On the above facts and taking into consideration that the appellant had not suff ered any permanent disability on account of the accident, the Tribunal held that the appellant is entitled to Rs. 6587/- as pecuniary damages, Rs. 2,000/- for p ain and suffering and Rs. 2000/- for loss of amenities for life. Thus in all, th e Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 10,657/- with interest @ Rs. 9% from the date of filing of the claim petition. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal. It is submitted on behalf of his learned counsel that the appellant was carrying on some poultry business and earning Rs. 4,200/- per month and as a result of t he accident, his business had stopped. I am in agreement with the Tribunal that the nature of the injuries were not such that they required the appellant to clo se the business. The claim based on closure of business is, therefore, not sustainable. With regard to the injuries said to have been suffered by the appellant, even if it is assumed (despite the absence of the evidence of the doctor) that the appe llant had suffered some injuries, the nature thereof were not such as to require any hospitalization. In any event, the appellant was unable to produce any evid ence of his hospitalization. The cash memos produced by the appellant exhibiting purchase of medicine were ac cepted by the Tribunal except the two which did not contain the signature of the pharmacist. Hence the amount claimed on the basis thereof was rightly rejected by the Tribunal. I do not see any justification in interfering with the Award of the Tribunal or increasing the amount of compensation as claimed by the learned counsel. I am of the opinion that the amount awarded to the appellant is just and reasonable and is calculated on the basis of the materials on record even taking into consider ation the absence of some relevant evidence. There is no merit in the appeal and it is dismissed. Send back the trial court records.