JUDGEMENT MANSOOR AHMAD MIR, J. - 1. THIS appeal is directed against the award, dated 7th November, 2005, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal I, Sirmaur District at Nahan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal"), in MAC Petition No. 163MAC/2 of 2004, titled as Ashok Kumar Sharma versus Ajay Kumar and another, whereby an award of Rs. 1,00,000/ alongwith 9% interest per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimant appellant and against the respondents herein from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realization (hereinafter referred to as "the impugned award"), on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. AS per the averments made in the claim petition, the claimant appellant met with a vehicular accident on 31.07.2004 near Baveja Petrol Pump, Bhup Pur, Paonta Sahib, when his scooter was hit by the offending Truck bearing No. HP178755, which was being driven by its driver rashly and negligently, as a result of which he sustained injuries and has suffered temporary disability. The disability certificate on the file does disclose that the claimant appellant has suffered 10% temporary disability. The claimant appellant has claimed Rs. 5,00,000/ as compensation as per the breakup given in the claim petition. 3. THE following issues came to be framed by the learned Tribunal: 1. Whether the petitioner, Ashok Kumar sustained injuries as a result of rash and negligent driving of Truck No.HP178755, on 31.07.2004 at about 7:25 AM near Bawaja Petrol Pump, Bhup Pur, Paonta Sahib, being driven by respondent No.2? 2. If issue No.1 is proved in affirmative, to what amount of compensation the petitioner is entitled to and from whom? 3. Whether the petition is not maintainable? 4. Relief. 4. THE learned Tribunal after examining all the issues as well as the evidence led by the claimant has held that the claimant appellant has succeeded in proving that the offending vehicle was being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner. Thus, the learned Tribunal, while allowing the petition, awarded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum as compensation under different heads. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the award, thus the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 5. NOW the only question arises for consideration is whether the amount awarded is just and proper. 1,00,000/ alongwith interest @ 9% per annum as compensation under different heads. The owner and the driver of the offending vehicle have not questioned the award, thus the same has attained finality so far as it relates to them. 5. NOW the only question arises for consideration is whether the amount awarded is just and proper. The answer is in affirmative. 6. I have gone through the file as well as the award passed by the learned Tribunal. In my considered view the reasons given by the learned Tribunal are legal one and need no interference. It is for the claimant appellant to prove how he is entitled for the enhanced compensation than the one awarded by the learned Tribunal. No doubt, he has placed on the file of the learned Tribunal some documents, but the same cannot be said to be legally admissible or can be read as an evidence. More so, the claimant appellant has failed to prove the said documents. In view of the above, the impugned award deserves to be upheld and the appeal is to be dismissed. Accordingly, the impugned award is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. Appeal is dismissed.