JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Appellant-claimant, by the medium of instant appeal, has questioned the award, dated 28th November, 2007, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Solan, (for short, the Tribunal), in Claim Petition No. 54-S/2 of 2006, titled Romesh Chand vs. Truck Co-operative and Operator Goods Carrier Transport Society Limited & Others, whereby compensation High Court of H.P. to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing of the Claim Petition till realization, was awarded in favour of the claimant, and the insurer was saddled with the liability, (for short, the impugned award). The appellant-claimant has filed this appeal on the ground that the Tribunal has not correctly appreciated the averments contained in the claim petition and also failed to scan the evidence. 2. The claimant has specifically averred in paragraph 10 of the claim petition that he had suffered injuries in the accident, which was caused by the driver, namely, Sat Pal, while driving the offending vehicle i.e. Tata Sumo No. HP-19-7713 rashly and negligently on 11.6.2004. But, a perusal of the MLC Ext. PW-5/A shows that the injuries noticed for the first time immediately after the accident were on the left side of the claimant and not on the right side. In the MLC Ext.PW-5/A, it was also not recorded that the claimant had suffered any injury, either on the left or the right side of the hip. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant was asked whether she is in a position to show prima facie any evidence on the file, which may disclose that the claimant had sustained injuries on the hip, which had resulted in hip replacement of the claimant in which she has failed. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant also stated that she is not in a position to place any document on record to that effect. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant further stated that since the appellant was on leave, the department has recovered some amount from his salary for the reason that no leave was at his credit. 5. In the given circumstances, one comes to an inescapable conclusion that no interference is warranted in the impugned award. Accordingly, the same is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. However, the appellant-claimant is at liberty to seek appropriate remedy.