JUDGMENT Appellant has preferred this appeal for the enhancement of the amount of compensation. The appellant was one of the claimants before the Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal. The appellant was stated to have suffered injuries in the stated accident. It was further submitted that due to the accident he has suffered permanent disablement. Learned Tribunal found that the appellant could not prove any permanent disability, therefore, for the injuries suffered by the claimant the Tribunal allowed the compensation to the tune of Rs. 27,625/- with interest thereon at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum. It is strenuously submitted by Shri Soni that the learned Claims Tribunal has wrongly held that the appellant did not suffer any permanent disablement. It is also contended that the Tribunal did not allow proper opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence. It is also urged that in the facts and circumstances and evidence of the case the amount awarded is too mearge. On such contentions the prayer is made that the amount of compensation be enhanced. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for appellant. On the perusal of the impugned award and the record of the Tribunal, we have found that the contentions are devoid of substance. Learned Tribunal has held that the appellant/claimant could not prove the permanent disablement. He had not examined the doctor, nor the record summoned from the hospital was got exhibited. The appellant had at the later stage filed application under order 13 Rule 2 for taking certain documents on record and had prayed for opportunity to examine Dr. Suresh Bandil. His application was allowed subject to the payment of cost but the appellant/claimant did not pay the cost. Doctor Bandil was not examined therefore, the Tribunal held that in the above situation the permanent disability could be neither, proved nor could be presumed. The Tribunal for the injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant, allowed him the compensation in the sum of Rs. 27,625/- On the consideration of the evidence, the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal can neither be said to be perverse not unreasonable. No illegality in the impugned award could be pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant. In the facts and circumstances we have found no merit in this appeal, it is as such summarily dismissed.