Anil Kumar Sharma, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. This FAFO has been filed for enhancement against the impugned award dated 2.3.2012 passed by MACT/Special Judge ( E.C. Act), Mainpuri in M.A.C.P. No. 483 of 2005, whereby compensation of a sum of Rs. 2,000/- along with 6% interest only have been awarded to the appellant/claimant in severe injuries case. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusal of record, it appears that after accident, the deceased-appellant had gone to All India Institute of Medical Sciences ( AIMS), New Delhi for treatment and was relieved on the next day as it was found from the injury report that he had received superficial injuries on his left thigh, hands, upper lips, left cheek & shoulder. There was tenderness in left thigh and abrasion in the hands and left chest and swelling in upper lips. In the X-ray done in AIIMS, no fracture was found and he was discharged on the same day after prescribing medicines. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the Insurance Company regarding injuries caused to the deceased-appellant reads thus: @ Hindi @ Thereafter, the appellant contacted Dr. J.P. Dixit, who treated the appellant and prepared medical bills for Rs.1,55,000/- regarding medical consultant, investigations, medicines, nursing care, bed charges etc. The Tribunal has disbelieved the medical bills filed by the claimant on the basis of the report of AIMS and has recorded its view as under: @ Hindi @ In his cross-examination, Sri Rajesh Kumar admitted that there was no fracture on any part of his body when he had been examined in AIIMS by doctors and that after completing investigation he had been discharged on the next day. The Tribunal has rightly come to the conclusion that it was clear from paper no.35-ga/11 that Sri Rajesh Kumar had received only simple injuries. The investigations and documents showing fracture in his ribs and showing him in incentive care and also the medical consultancy, medicines, nursing care, bed charges etc., incurring more than 1,55,000/- were prepared only for the purpose of claim. It is noteworthy that in the investigations at AIIMS done immediately after the said accident, the Doctors did not find any injury in the nature of fracture on any part of body of the appellant. However, it appears that the appellant in connivance with Dr. It is noteworthy that in the investigations at AIIMS done immediately after the said accident, the Doctors did not find any injury in the nature of fracture on any part of body of the appellant. However, it appears that the appellant in connivance with Dr. Dixit fabricated x-ray plates and report showing fracture in the ribs. It is also noteworthy that Dr. Dixit who was appeared as P.W. 2 before the Tribunal is not Orthopaedic Surgeon, but have B.A.M.S. degree. For all the reasons stated above, the Court is of the view that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned award, awarding compensation of Rs.2,000/-. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed having no force. No order as to costs.