Hon'ble RATHOD, J.—Heard learned advocate Mr. P.M. Vyas appearing on behalf of appellant and learned advocate Mr. Thomas for learned advocate Mr. Vibhuti Nanavati appearing on behalf of respondent. This appeal is preferred by claimant for enhancement of Rs.10,000/-. I have considered submissions made by learned advocate Mr. Vyas that claims tribunal has committed gross error in not assessing income properly. He also submitted that injury which has been received by claimant in accident is also not properly appreciated by claims tribunal and evidence of Dr. Hasumatiben Patel is also not properly considered by claims tribunal. Therefore, amount is only Rs.6,500/- has been awarded with 6% interest against claim of Rs.30,000/-. He submitted that Rs.10,000/- is required to be enhanced because claimant has received serious injury and medical evidence is available, but, claims tribunal has not properly considered permanent disability of claimant. Learned advocate Mr. Thomas submitted that claims tribunal has properly appreciated evidence on record. There was no disability certificate given by Dr. Hasumatiben Patel and therefore, only considering mental weakness of claimant as noted in discharge certificate, claims tribunal has awarded Rs.6,500/- compensation in favour of claimant. There is no case for enhancement, therefore, appeal may be dismissed. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates appearing on behalf of respective parties and I have also perused award passed by claims tribunal. The claims tribunal has assessed income from hotel business and earned Rs.500/- per month. Dr. Hasumatiben has deposed that applicant was suspected to have closed head injury as he remained unconscious from 9.4.76 till 31.5.76. The applicant remained in Neuro Surgical Ward and on discharge from Hospital, followings were given : 1. Patient was fully conscious. 2. All cranial nerves were normal. 3. All reflexes were normal. 4. There was no neck stiff-ness. 5. No rebelim sign. 6. He was advised cerival collar and bad sore dressing on alternate day with furacin dressing treatment. Dr. Hasumatiben has deposed that in discharge certificate did not reflect that patient suffered from any mental weakness. No neurological disorder was indicated in discharge certificate. From the papers before her, she deposed that patient was completely cured so far as neurological signs were concerned. There were no injury suggested in cervical spins in case papers. Therefore, considering evidence of Dr. Hasumatiben has deposed that in discharge certificate did not reflect that patient suffered from any mental weakness. No neurological disorder was indicated in discharge certificate. From the papers before her, she deposed that patient was completely cured so far as neurological signs were concerned. There were no injury suggested in cervical spins in case papers. Therefore, considering evidence of Dr. Hasumatiben as well as also considering fact that patient remained as an indoor patient for about two months, claims tribunal has awarded Rs.6,500/- compensation in favour of appellant. The claims tribunal has also awarded transportation charges and also considered actual loss caused to claimant Rs.1,500/- and thereafter, following reason is given by claims tribunal in Para 37 and 38, which are quoted as under : "37. Applicant has examined his maternal uncle at Exh.49. This witness has deposed that the wife of the applicant used to borrow from him as the applicant had met with an accident; and that in all he must gave given to her amount Rs.4000. The said witness has not produced any receipts or documentary evidence in this connection. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he has neither maintained account nor has he taken any receipts regarding the amounts which he had advanced to the applicant and that he had no documentary evidence to show that he have advanced the aforesaid sum as stated by him. In the circumstances of the case, it is also not possible that such a large sum could have been advanced by this witness as deposed by him. As stated above, I have awarded a mounts on the amount of expenses regarding medicines and medical charges, special diet and transport charges. If any amount was borrowed for the said purpose, the same could be paid from the said amount. It is, therefore, not possible to award any further amount because of any allege borrowing. 38. So far as the probable future loss of income by reason of incapacity or diminished capacity for work is concerned, there is medical evidence in this connection. All that is alleged in the oral evidence is that applicant had gone away from home on one or two occasions. Such evidence cannot go to show that there was any permanent incapacity as alleged. Furthermore, the discharge certificate as deposed by Dr. All that is alleged in the oral evidence is that applicant had gone away from home on one or two occasions. Such evidence cannot go to show that there was any permanent incapacity as alleged. Furthermore, the discharge certificate as deposed by Dr. Hasumati Patel did not reflect that the applicant suffered from any mental weakness when he was discharged or that any mental disorder was noted in the discharge certificate." In view of aforesaid observations made by claims tribunal and considering submissions made by both learned advocates, according to my opinion, claims tribunal has rightly examined matter and therefore, no interference is required by this Court. Therefore, there is no substance in present appeal. Accordingly, present appeal is dismissed. R. & P., if receive, be sent back to claims tribunal concerned, forthwith.