JUDGMENT :

1. Appellant-claimant feeling dissatisfied with impugned judgment and award dated 5th of June, 2018, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajgarh, District Churu (for short, ‘learned Tribunal), has laid this appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, ‘Act’). The appellant has craved for enhancement of compensation awarded by learned Tribunal on various counts on account of injuries suffered by him in an accident.

2. Brief facts are that on 19th of February, 2010 at about 1:30 PM when appellant Dalip Singh was on his way riding a motorcycle near Mahendra Tractor Agency, a Pickup bearing No. RJ-10-GG- 2331, coming from opposite direction, driven rashly and negligently hit the motorcycle. Due to the said accident, appellant sustained grievious and simple injuries. A report of the said accident was lodged at Police Station, Rajgarh and after investigation, chargesheet against the driver of pickup was filed in the concerned Court. Appellant, in the claim petition, under different heads, in all claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.14,19,481/- from respondents.

3. The claim petition was contested by insurer respondent No.1 denying most of the averments of claim petition in toto. It was the case of insurer that accident did not occur due to rash and negligent driving of insured vehicle but on account of appellant’s own negligence. It was further case of the insurer that driver of the offending vehicle was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident and said vehicle was not used under the employment of its owner as such insurer is not liable to pay compensation. By narrating all these facts, the insurer pleaded for rejection of the claim petition.

4. Respondents No.2 & 3 also filed written statements. While admitting the occurrence of accident, both of them denied other averments and prayed for dismissal of claim petition.

5. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings, settled four issues for determination. To substantiate the claim, from the side of appellant-claimant Dalip Singh AW1 appeared in the witness box and also examined one more witness Gyan Prakash AW2 and exhibited 88 documents. No evidence was produced on behalf of respondents either oral or documentary in support of their defence.

6. The learned Tribunal, after hearing rival parties, partly allowed the claim petition and declared appellant entitled for compensation to the tune of Rs.1,74,600/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition

7. Espousing appellant’s cause for enhancement of compensation, it is submitted by learned counsel that the learned Tribunal has not awarded compensation for loss of income during which the appellant remained hospitalized and has not awarded compensation under some other heads as such compensation amount requires enhancement.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment & award.

9. Upon perusal of impugned judgment and award, in my opinion, learned Tribunal, has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence. The learned Tribunal has assessed just and reasonable compensation, which cannot be said to be inadequate calling for any enhancement in the factual backdrop of facts and circumstances of the instant case more particularly in view of the fact that the claimant-appellant has failed to prove the injury suffered by him by cogent evidence. The learned Tribunal, upon examining the documents noticed that no injury report is produced by the appellant and relevant treatment documents are not inspiring confidence without evidence of the treating doctor. However, despite that learned Tribunal has awarded compensation for the medical bills produced by the appellant. Therefore, I am not impressed by the submissions of learned counsel that learned Tribunal has committed manifest error or illegality in assessing the quantum of compensation. In view thereof, I find no infirmity in the impugned judgment and award warranting