JUDGMENT Heard Mr. A Mannaf, learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter called “the Act”) against the award dated 20.2.2013 passed by the Additional District Judge No.3 (FTC) -cum- Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahati (for short “the Tribunal”) in MAC Case No.737/2010. By the impugned award, the Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition filed by the claimant under Section 166 of the Act and awarded a total sum of Rs.8,000/- by way of compensation to the claimant for the injuries sustained by him in vehicular accident. It is an injury case. Claimant (appellant) – Sri GobindaHaloi is a businessman. On 14.11.2009 at about 6-00 AM, while he was coming from Baganpara Bazar,at Barikadonga under Barbari Police Station, in the district of Baksa, due to rash and negligent driving by the non-applicant No.1, the motor cycle, bearing registration No.AS-01-M-5843 hit the claimant from back side. Due to this accident, the claimant fell down and claimed to have suffered injuries on his body. He then undergone medical treatment. It is this incident, which gave rise to filing of the claim petition under Section 166 of the Act against the respondents, out of which, this appeal arises, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him. The Tribunal by the impugned award partly allowed the claim petition. It awarded a sum of Rs.8,000/-, which included Rs.5,874/- towards medical expenses, Rs. 2,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.100/- for loss of income. Thus, a total sum of Rs.7,974/- which was rounded off to Rs.8,000/- was awarded to the claimant, which has given rise to filing of this appeal by claimant for enhancement. In my opinion, looking to the evidence adduced by the claimant, whichI perused, it clearly appears to be a case where the claimant has been awarded adequate compensation for the injuries sustained by him in vehicular accident. What is material for claiming compensation in such cases is not the sustaining of injury only, but the extent of damage suffered by the injured (claimant) due to injury. The claimant should feel satisfied that he survived in the accident, because, God was kind to him. However, injury sustained was not very serious and hence he was paid sufficient amount of compensation. The claimant should feel satisfied that he survived in the accident, because, God was kind to him. However, injury sustained was not very serious and hence he was paid sufficient amount of compensation. He should not, therefore, now unnecessary encashhis destiny in terms of money for claiming more than what has been awarded. As observed by the Supreme Court in many cases, the award of compensation should not be a bonanza to claimant, nor be like a booty to him. A just compensation commensurate with the damage/disabilities caused is the relevant criteria, which should be kept in mind. I follow this principle in letter and spirit while deciding the appeal and on appreciation of evidence adduced, uphold the award of compensation of Rs.8,000/-, which in my view, is just and reasonable looking to the age of injured, nature of single injury sustained and lastly without there being any kind of disabilities. In my view, therefore, taking into account the totality of the circumstances taken note of supra, I do not find any ground to further enhance the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The appeal thus fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. No cost.