JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Sri Ram Singh, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned award. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that Mool Chandra, claimant-appellant was a teacher in Koteshwar Inter College Ramwa. After attending the College when he was coming back to his residence in Mohalla Nasirpur, Fatehpur City on his motor-cycle he met with an accident at about 5.00 p.m. near Joniha Chauraha, Ram Nagar. The offending truck No. UP-71, B-9543, coming from the side of Radha Nagar, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, hit the motor-cycle of the appellant, as a result of which he sustained grievous injuries. The report of the accident was lodged on 18.11.2011 at 22.30 p.m. at P.S. Kotwali, Fatehpur by Ram Raj son of Jhallu resident of Mohalla Nasirpur, P.S. Kotwali, Fatehpur and a case crime No. 597/11, under Sections 279,337 and 338 IPC was registered against the driver of truck No. UP-71, B-9543. It was averred in the claim petition that the claimant-appellant was admitted in District Hospital, Fatehpur but as the injuries were grievous, he was referred to Sharma Nursing Hospital where he remained admitted for about a month. 2. It was further alleged that in the accident right hand of the claimant was amputated and injuries were also sustained on his head. The age of the claimant was about 30 years on the date of accident and he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from teaching job, tutions and from working as an Agent for Bajaj Allianz. 3. The opposite parties, i..e. the owner and insurer of the offending truck contested the claim petition denying the factum of accident as also the income of the deceased whereas the claimant filed documentary evidence and also examined himself as PW-1, Uma Shankar Tiwari, PW-2 and Shiv Shankar PW-3 in support of his case. 4. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties’ counsel, the Tribunal finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck and he was having valid licence partly allowed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- vide award dated 27.11.2012. 4. After considering the evidence on record and hearing the parties’ counsel, the Tribunal finding that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending truck and he was having valid licence partly allowed the claim petition for a sum of Rs. 20,000/- vide award dated 27.11.2012. The impugned award, aforesaid is assailed by the appellant on the ground that the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal has committed manifest error of law by ignoring the facts on record as such the impugned award is liable to be modified by enhancing the awarded amount of compensation payable to the appellant. It is strenuously argued that the amount of Rs. 15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal for medical treatment is inadequate for the grievous injuries suffered in the accident aforesaid which resulted in amputation of his right hand; that he spent Rs. 1,50,000/- during medical treatment and the claimant has got 60% disability, hence he cannot do his work easily. It is also urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal has also not considered the income of the claimant while calculating the amount of compensation as he was earning Rs. 15,000/- per month from teaching job etc. 5. We find from record that no document whatsoever was filed by the appellant in support of his case regarding amputation of his right hand attributable to the injuries suffered by him in the alleged accident. We have perused the impugned award and find that the Tribunal has framed following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. 5. We find from record that no document whatsoever was filed by the appellant in support of his case regarding amputation of his right hand attributable to the injuries suffered by him in the alleged accident. We have perused the impugned award and find that the Tribunal has framed following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties. “1- D;k fnukad 16-11-2012 le; yxHkx 5 cts 'kke LFkku tksfugk pkSjkgk t;jke uxj Fkkuk dksrokyh ftyk Qrsgiqj esa Vªd uEcj&;w0ih0 71ch0&9543 ds pkyd us Vªd ls ;kph ewypUnz dh eksVj lkbfdy esa tksjnkj VDdj ekj fn;k ftlls ;kph dh eksVj lkbfdy {kfrxzLr gks x;h o ;kph ewypUnz dks izk.k&?kkrd xEHkhj pksVsa vk;h\ 2- D;k dfFkr fnukWd] le; o LFkku ij rFkkdfFkr nq?kZVuk Vªd uEcj &;w0ih0 71ch0&9543 ds pkyd dh rsth o ykijokgh ds dkj.k ?kfVr gqbZ\ 3- D;k dfFkr fnukad] le; o LFkku ij rFkkdfFkr nq?kZVuk ;kph dh Lo;a dh rsth ,oa ykijokgh ls eksVj lkbfdy pykus ds dkj.k ?kfVr gqbZ\ 4- D;k dfFkr nq?kZVuk frfFk ij Vªd uEcj&;w0ih0 71ch0&9543 dk chek foi{kh la[;k&2 pksyk e.Mye ,e0,l0 tuZy bU’;ksjsUl dEiuh ds ;gkW ls oS/k ,oa izHkkoh Fkk vkSj mDr okgu dk mi;ksx ,oa iz;ksx chek 'krksZ ds vuqlkj fd;k tk jgk Fkk\ 5- D;k dfFkr nq?kZVuk dh frfFk ij eksVj lkbfdy o Vªd ua0 ;w0ih0 71ch0&9543 ds pkyd ds ikl okgu pykus dk oS/k ,oa izHkkoh Mªkbfoax ykblsUl Fkk\ 6- D;k ;kfpdk esa rFkkdfFkr eksVj lkbfdy ds Lokeh] mldh chek dEiuh ,oa ;w0ih0 71ch0&9543 ds pkyd dks i{k u cuk;s tkus dk nks"k gS\ 7- D;k ;kph izfrdj ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ ;fn gkW rks fdruk vkSj fdlh i{kdkj ls\” Issue Nos. 1,2 and 3 were decided together by the Tribunal holding that on 16.11.2010 the accident occurred due to sole act of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending truck. Consequently, the claimant sustained injuries and his right hand was amputated. Issue No. 4 was decided holding that the aforesaid truck was duly insured with the Insurance Company and it was being used and plied under the terms and conditions of the Insurance Company. On the basis of the evidence, issue Nos. 5 and 6 were decided holding that the driver of the offending truck was having valid and effective licence on the date of accident and that there is no defect of non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the owner and insurer of the motor-cycle. On the basis of the evidence, issue Nos. 5 and 6 were decided holding that the driver of the offending truck was having valid and effective licence on the date of accident and that there is no defect of non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. the owner and insurer of the motor-cycle. With regard to issue No. 7, the Tribunal in paragraph 15 of its judgment observed thus : “15. For ascertaining the loss of earning capacity the claimants has filed original disability certificate paper No. 27-C issued by the District Hospital, Fatehpur in which the disability of the claimant is fixed as 60%. His right hand has been amputated. The claimant has stated that after the accident he was referred to Kanpur and his hand was amputated. The claimant has not filed any documentary evidence with regard to the amputation of his hand. The only paper which has been filed by the claimant is paper No. 45-C dated 7.11.2011 and paper No. 46-C i.e Discharge slip showing that the injured was admitted in Hospital on 16.11.2011 and discharged on 28th November, 2011. Claimant further stated that he was referred to Kanpur but no reference letter is filed by the claimant. It is also practically impossible that a person whose hand has amputated. He only remained in Hospital just for 4 days. The claimant failed to prove that his hand was amputated due to the injuries sustained in the accident in question. The claimant also stated that he is earning the same amount which was earning before the accident. There is no loss of earning due to the disability. Hence, the claimant is not entitled for compensation under the head of loss of earning capacity. However, in issue No. 1 it has been decided that the claimant has sustained injury and was treated and remained in hospital for 4 days, he must have spent some money in his treatment. The claimant has also filed medical bills and vouchers of Rs. 34,859.00 out of which bill Nos. 4,5 and 6 of Rs. 5,000/- pasted on paper No. 42-C are not correct and are not proved. But as he has sustained injury, hence Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. fifteen thousand) only as compensation under this head of money spent on medical treatment is just and proper. Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. 34,859.00 out of which bill Nos. 4,5 and 6 of Rs. 5,000/- pasted on paper No. 42-C are not correct and are not proved. But as he has sustained injury, hence Rs. 15,000/- (Rs. fifteen thousand) only as compensation under this head of money spent on medical treatment is just and proper. Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) will also be sufficient for pain and suffering, conveyance charges and for payment to attendant at the time of treatment. The claimant is entitled for the total amount of compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (Rs. twenty thousand) only. As it has been held in the findings of issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of driver of truck No. UP-71-B/9543, truck was duly insured with the Insurance Company on the date and time of accident, it was being plied under the terms and condition of the Insurance Policy, all the papers were valid and effective and the driver was having valid and effective driving licence, the liability to pay the amount is fastened on the Insurance Company, O.P. No. 2. The claimant shall also get interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the claim petition till the actual payment on the amount of compensation. Issue No. 7 is decided accordingly.” 6. At this stage, Sri Ram Singh, Advocate has filed a Misc. Application praying to accept the documents appended therewith as additional evidence. In paragraph 4 of the application it has been averred that due to inadvertence of the counsel for the appellant before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fatehpur documents relating to treatment of injured and expenses arising out of the same could not be filed; that the appellant was advised to file documents relating to his treatment and proof regarding his disability caused during the treatment as such the same are being filed alongwith this application. In paragraph 4 it has also been averred that in the aforesaid circumstances, the documents annexed alongwith the application be taken as additional evidence on record. We have perused the affidavit and the documents annexed with the application and find that the medical certificate and the prescriptions etc. filed by the appellant before us have been got prepared after the date of the award. 7. We have perused the affidavit and the documents annexed with the application and find that the medical certificate and the prescriptions etc. filed by the appellant before us have been got prepared after the date of the award. 7. We, therefore, are of the view that the application of the claimant-appellant does not fulfill the conditions of Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C. and the documents which have been got prepared by him after the award cannot be taken on record. It is accordingly, rejected as not maintainable. Now reverting to merits of the case, the perusal of findings recorded by the Tribunal regarding loss of earning capacity proving of medical bills in re: of the treatment of the claimant and amount of compensation, the Tribunal has given cogent reason in paragraph 15 of its judgment, as quoted above. For all the reasons stated above, the appeal sans merit. The award is upheld and the appeal is accordingly, dismissed. ——————