2 g? By this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, the present appellant has challenged the Iegality‘and propriety of the award dated 12-11-2003 passed by First Additionai Motor Accident Ciaims Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal), Raigarh, District Raigarh (CG)) in Claim Case No. 37 of 2002 whereby against the claim of, Rs. 5,55,500/—, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.63,000/— along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum on account of injury sustained by the appellant. The award is challenged on the ground that while awarding compensation, the Tribunal has not considered permanent disability of the appellant and has awarded low compensation. As per case of the parties, on 10—5-2002 at about 1.00 p.m. when the appellant was going to Chakradhar Nagar on his motor cycle, on the way the respondent No.1 While driving Maruti Carr bearing CG 13/3200 owned by respondent No.2 and insured with respondent No.3, in a rash and negligent manner dashed the vehicle of the appellant and due to that the appellant sustained injuries. FIR was lodged and the appellant was examined by the doctor and he was hospitalized for some time for which he spent money. The appellant was unable to perform his regular duty because of permanent disability as fracture on his rjght leg was detected. Because of the aforesaid accident, the appellant has claimed compensation of Rs. 5, 55,500/-. Against the aforesaid claim, learned Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs. 63,000/- to the appellant against the compensation of Rs.5, 55,500/—. fa \ f’:2§: We have heard !earned counsel for the parties, perused the award impugned and record of the Claims Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appeliant vehementiy argued that while awarding low compensation, the Tribunal has not considered actual epen inre by the appeln n medil treaent nd h xses curd lat i ca tm a as lso nt idd te disabli of apea d heby a o consere h ity the pllnt an tre omitd illegaly. cmte it on ed l ea onn No 6. Per ctra, learn counse appring for the respdet .3 st the wrd d e he ompnsa of uppored aa an contnded that t cetion R.6,000/- arded by he Tribunal is just and proper in the ft s3 aw t acs and circumstace of he present case. ns t I the prest se, t t/laiant has ti sabiity n en ca he appellancm led dil cercae(Ex.A/, bt th tribu has disbelieed the me o th tiht7) u e nal v sa n e d that som rtion w made in the ertificate afte grodn e corec as c r ss the same whc wa dm tor P W iuance of ih s aitted by the Doc S.. are A/ who issued the s. The doctor furtr amited that i (W3) ame he dt f ropr treatnt ad been provided to the aellnt immetely pe me h ppa dia, the nju stai by ud mit iries suned him wol have been cured and he gh h d s, sat cei not ave sustained the isability. Thu dibiliy rtifcate x.A/7) appears o e suicious. fter consiring t afesaid (E t b sp A de he or fac, leard ribunal has discard he disality cmcate ts ne t de t bi ert (Ex.A/7) and holding the factum of disability to be 25%, learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 63,000/— along with interest @ 9% per annum to the appellant on account of a motor accident. On due consideration of the entire evidence, especially in absence of medical evidence regarding the injuries and treatment, we do not find any scope for enhancement of compensation awarded by the be \ i i Tribunal. Thus, the appeal devoid of merit is dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to ‘i i‘x ~ Sdl_ r. Sd/— LRN. Chandfakar ’T.P. Sharma . judge