Judgment ( 1. ) - Case is listed in default of P. P. for the respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for appellant prays for dispensing with services of respondent No. 2 as services of respondent No. 2 are not necessary for just disposal of the appeal. In view of this, services of the respondent No. 2 are dispensed with. ( 2. ) WITH the consent of parties, heard on merits. ( 3. ) THIS is an appeal filed by claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles act against an award dated 9. 1. 2007 passed by Fifteenth Motor Accidents Claims tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 167 of 2004. By the impugned award, the Claims tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 3,000 to the claimant by way of compensation for the injury which appellant sustained in an accident. According to the claimant, i. e. , appellant herein, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. So the question that arises for consideration is whether any case for enhancement in compensation awarded by the Tribunal on facts/evidence adduced is made out and if so to what extent? ( 4. ) IT is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation, etc. It is for the reason that, firstly, all these findings are recorded in favour of claimant by the learned Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants favour are under challenge at the instance of any of the respondents such as owner/driver or insurance company either by way of cross-appeal or cross-objection. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. ( 5. ) AS observed supra, it is an injury case. Learned counsel for appellant submits that appellant who was aged 25 years at the time of accident, sustained head injuries on account of accident which took place on 29. 11. 2001. It is submitted that appellant was brought to M. Y. Hospital where he was hospitalised from 30. 11. 2001 to 9. 12. 2001. Thereafter after two years again the appellant was hospitalised from 7. 5. 2003 to 14. 5. 2003. 11. 2001. It is submitted that appellant was brought to M. Y. Hospital where he was hospitalised from 30. 11. 2001 to 9. 12. 2001. Thereafter after two years again the appellant was hospitalised from 7. 5. 2003 to 14. 5. 2003. Learned counsel submits that appellant was unconscious for 4-5 hours and apart from this, appellant also sustained facial injuries. The learned counsel submits that medical document which has been filed by the appellant goes to show that there was fracture of temporal occipital region of skull. Learned counsel vehemently contends that looking to the injuries, the amount awarded is grossly inadequate. ( 6. ) LEARNED counsel for appellant further submits that since all the documents could not be filed before the learned Tribunal, therefore, same is filed before this court along with an application under Order 42, rule 27, Civil Procedure Code. ( 7. ) LEARNED counsel for respondent No. 3 submits that appellant was negligent all along. The claim petition was dismissed for want of prosecution on 2. 4. 2005 which was restored on 12. 7. 2006. It is submitted that the documents which ought to have been filed by the appellant before the learned Tribunal are being filed before this court for which appellant cannot be given opportunity to fill up lacunas. The learned counsel further submits that looking to the injuries, the amount awarded is just and proper. ( 8. ) AFTER going through all the evidence on record, it reveals that appellant was a young man of 25 years and was cleaner by profession sustained head injuries. He was brought from Sirpur to Indore. It is true that documentary evidence which could have been filed before learned Tribunal are being filed before this court but only on this ground, a genuine case in which the claimant is entitled for compensation cannot be denied. It is also true that claim petition was dismissed on 2. 4. 2005 which was restored on 12. 7. 2006 for which the appellant cannot be blamed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, appellant is entitled for the following amount: ( 9. ) THUS, appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 65,000 instead of Rs. 3,000. The enhanced amount of Rs. 62,000 shall carry interest at the rate of 7. 5 per cent from the date of application. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of. ) THUS, appellant shall be entitled for a sum of Rs. 65,000 instead of Rs. 3,000. The enhanced amount of Rs. 62,000 shall carry interest at the rate of 7. 5 per cent from the date of application. With the aforesaid modification, the appeal stands disposed of. Appeal allowed.