JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J. 1. Appellant has invoked jurisdiction of this Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for short “the Act” for enhancement of the award dated 7.1.2006, made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (I) Sirmaur, District at Nahan in MAC Petition No. 149-MA C/2 of 2004, titled Dharam Pal Gupta versus Balbir Singh and another, whereby compensation to the tune of Rs. 15000/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum came to be awarded in favour of the claimant against respondents No. 1 and 2, jointly and severally, hereinafter referred to as “the impugned award” for short, on the grounds taken in the memo of appeal. 2. It appears that appellant became victim of a vehicular accident which was caused by respondent No.1 owner-cum- driver of vehicle, i.e., motor Cycle No. HR-02-7761, rashly and negligently on 14.3.2002 at about 2.15 p.m. near Adarsh Colony on Rajban-Paonta Sahib road. 3. The claim petition came to be filed after two years of the accident. 4. The issues were framed and the Tribunal, after scanning the evidence held that the claimant has not proved that he has lost hearing power because of the said traffic accident. However, awarded Rs.15000/- in lump sum. 5. Admittedly, the claimant was victim of a vehicular accident. Dr. Sanjeev Sehgal (PW-3) had examined him on that day and recorded MLC Ext. PW3/A which do disclose that the claimant had sustained five injuries but all the five were simple in nature and were not related to loss of hearing. Even Dr. Anil Gupta (PW-1) stated that may be, the loss of hearing had happened due to some disease. He has nowhere stated that loss of hearing is the result of the traffic accident. 6. Having said so, the Tribunal has rightly made the discussion and decided the issues. The award, on the face of it, is meager for the simple reason that the claimant became victim of a vehicular accident and suffered five injuries, which is not denied by the respondents. The claimant was taken to hospital and was under treatment. He has undergone pain and sufferings. 7. In view of the above, an award of Rs.25,000/-, at least, was to be made. Accordingly, I deem it proper to enhance the award by Rs.10,000/- with interest. Ordered accordingly. 8. The claimant was taken to hospital and was under treatment. He has undergone pain and sufferings. 7. In view of the above, an award of Rs.25,000/-, at least, was to be made. Accordingly, I deem it proper to enhance the award by Rs.10,000/- with interest. Ordered accordingly. 8. The insurance is directed to deposit the enhanced amount of Rs.10,000/- with interest @ 7.5% from the date of award, within four weeks from today. On deposit, Registry is directed to release the same in favour of the claimant, through payees cheque account, strictly in terms of the conditions contained in the impugned award. 9. The appeal stands accordingly, disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. Send down the record forthwith.