ORDER 1. This is an appeal filed by the claimant under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against an award dated 16.1.2004, passed by IInd Additional MACT, Khargone, in Claim Case No. 33/2002. By impugned award, the Claims Tribunal has awarded a total sum of Rs. 15,700/-. with interest to the claimant for the injuries sustained by appellant. According to claimant, the compensation awarded is on lower side and hence, need to be enhanced. It is for the enhancement in the compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the claimant has filed this appeal. 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 in the compensation awarded and if so to what extent? 2. 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 claimants by· the Tribunal. Secondly, none of these findings though recorded in claimants' favour are under challenge at the instance of the respondents either by way of cross appeal or cross objection. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was aged 40 years at the time of accident, which took place on 4.1.2000. Appellant was in Government service. Appellant sustained fracture of pelvic bone. It is submitted that appellant was hospitalized from 4.1.2000 to 9.1.2000. Appellant sustained urinary infection. Appellant sustained permanent disability. Learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 15,700/-, break-up of which is a under: Rs. 10,685/- Towards medical expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards pain and sufferings. 4. Learned counsel 'for the appellant submits that looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. Along with the appeal an application was filed by the appellant under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC, whereby number of documents has been submitted to demonstrate that appellant had been further treated for his urinary infection at Chandigarh. Appellant was hospitalized from 9.8.2004 to 28.8.2004. It is also submitted that appellant spent a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in his treatment. Appellant was hospitalized from 9.8.2004 to 28.8.2004. It is also submitted that appellant spent a sum of Rs. 25,000/- in his treatment. Learned counsel submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is grossly inadequate, which deserves to be enhanced. 5. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits, respondent No.3 has filed cross-objections. The liability has wrongly been fastened on respondent No.3. From the record it is amply proved that respondent No.1 was not possessing valid driving licence. The case was contested by respondent No. 2. During the trial a fake driving licence of respondent No. 1 was produced. Respondent No.3 has proved the fact that alleged licence Exhibit NA-3, was never issued by RTO Raipur. It is submitted that a criminal case was registered under section 3 (81) of Motor Vehicle Act against respondent No.1, which itself goes to show that the respondent No.1 was not possessing driving licence. It is submitted that inspite of this right of recovery has not been given to respondent No.3 only on the ground that respondent No.3 fail to plead and prove that respondent No.1 was not possessing vaid driving licence. Learned counsel submits that these findings deserves to be quashed. So far as injuries are concerned learned counsel submits that appellant was in Government service. Permanent disability has not been found proved. There is no loss of earning to the appellant. So far as treatment taken place in the year 2004 is concerned, it has nothing to do with the injuries sustained by the appellant at the time of accident. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and proper and no case for enhancement is made out. 6. I have gone through evidence adduced by the claimant. After taking into consideration all the evidence on record it appears that there is nothing on record to show that treatment taken by the appellant in the year 2004 is having no concern with the accident, which took place in the year 2000. It is true that appellant is not suffering any financial loss, as appellant is well and getting the same salary, which he was getting at the time of accident. In my opinion looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded is on lower side, which deserves to be enhanced. It is true that appellant is not suffering any financial loss, as appellant is well and getting the same salary, which he was getting at the time of accident. In my opinion looking to the injuries sustained by the appellant the amount awarded is on lower side, which deserves to be enhanced. In the facts and circumstances of the case appellant is entitled for the following amount: Rs. 11,000/- Towards medical expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards pain and sufferings. Rs.5,000/- Towards special diet. Rs. 5,000/- Towards transportation expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards expo incurred on attenders. Rs. 5,000/- Towards loss of income. Rs. 10,000/- Towards injuries. Rs. 46,000/- Total 7. Thus, the appellant is entitled for a total sum of Rs. 46,000/-, instead of Rs. 15,700/-. The enhanced amount of Rs. 30,300/-, shall carry interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of application. 8. So far as the question of exoneration of respondent No. 3 is concerned since ample evidence is on record to show that the respondent No. 1 was not possessing any licence at the time of accident and licence which was produced by respondent No.2 was found fake, therefore, respondent No.3 shall have a right to recover the amount from respondents No. 1 and 2: 9. With the aforesaid modifications the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs.