JUDGMENT : Kalyan Rai Surana, J. 1. Heard Mr. P.K. Deka learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. R. Goswami learned counsel for the respondent No. 2. None appears on call for the respondent No. 1. This appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is filed against the judgment and award dated 28.03.2007 passed by the learned Member, MACT-cum-Additional District Judge (FTC), Karimganj in MAC Case No. 231/2005. This appeal is for enhancement of the award. 2. By filing the application under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the appellant had projected that on 01.08.2005 at about 9:30 am while his son Abdul Hussain Borbhuiya was travelling from Kalain to Borkhola by bus bearing registration No. AS-11-A/3052, while the vehicle reached near Padritilla at Kalain, the said vehicle turned turtle and fell into the road side ditch due to rash and negligent driving by the driver. As a result of the accident, the son of the appellant sustained grievous injuries. After the accident, the appellant was taken to Kalain Community Health Centre where he had undergone treatment till 13.08.2005 as indoor patient. In the claim petition it was projected that due to the injuries he had become permanently disabled and was not fully cured and claimed that he could not do his professional and normal works. The appellant prayed for compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- (Rupees Three lakh only) with interest thereon. 3. The owner of the vehicle as well as the respondent No. 2 herein contested the claim petition by filing their respective written statement. On the basis of pleading, the learned Tribunal had framed the following 4 issues for determination: (1). Whether the claimant has cause of action of this case? (2). Whether the alleged accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle in question? (3). Whether the claimant is entitled to get any compensation, if so, to what extent? (4). To what other relief/reliefs the claimant is entitled in law and equity? 4. The appellant/claimant examined two witnesses and the respondent No. 2 examined one witness. As per the evidence of PW1, as a result of the accident, he suffered fracture of his right forearm, fracture of left clavicle and grievous injuries on his chest, forehead and face. (4). To what other relief/reliefs the claimant is entitled in law and equity? 4. The appellant/claimant examined two witnesses and the respondent No. 2 examined one witness. As per the evidence of PW1, as a result of the accident, he suffered fracture of his right forearm, fracture of left clavicle and grievous injuries on his chest, forehead and face. He claimed to have taken indoor treatment at Kalain CHC till 13.08.2005 and thereafter he attended the chamber of two doctors named therein but did not get any permanent relief. He also claimed that he was still unable to lift weight or do much work with his right hand and cannot move his left-shoulder freely and cannot do much work with his left hand which has rendered him partially disabled. He also claimed to have incurred an expense of Rs. 35,000/- till date. The following Exhibits were proved by him:- (1). Accident information report (Exhibit-1), (2). Injury Report (Exhibit-2), (3). Discharge Certificate (Exhibit-3), (4). Prescription of Kalain CHC (Exhibit-4), (5). Prescription by Doctor (Ext-5) (6) Doctor's prescription (Ext-6), (7) Original Cash memos [Exhibit-7(i) to 7(iv)], (8). Prescription issued by another Doctor (Exhibit-8), (9). X-Ray report (Exhibit-9) and (10). X-Ray plates (Exhibit-10). 5. In his cross-examination PW1 had stated that he was travelling with the injured at the time of the accident, and that he had also lodged an Ejahar for the said accident. It was denied that the same was not submitted in the case. He had also submitted that he had filed X-ray plates and X-ray report in the case. 6. PW2, Azir Uddin Laskar has corroborated the case of the appellant. In his cross-examination he had stated that he was also travelling in the same bus which was involved in the accident and had also sustained injury. 7. The respondent No. 2 i.e. the insurer had examined Sri Krishnapad Roy, their Legal Assistant as DW1. The said witness proved from Ext-C i.e. letter from D.T.O., Aizawi, Mizoram that Driving licence No. 31521/MZ/Prof was issued in the name of one Mr. Lalsanga Lushai of Aizawl, and he had deposed that the licence of driver was fake. Therefore, the claim of the owner was repudiated and such repudiation is not under challenge. The said insurer had exhibited the following documents:- (1). Copy of the Insurance Policy (Ext-A), (2). Office letter for verification of Licence (Ext-B), (3). Lalsanga Lushai of Aizawl, and he had deposed that the licence of driver was fake. Therefore, the claim of the owner was repudiated and such repudiation is not under challenge. The said insurer had exhibited the following documents:- (1). Copy of the Insurance Policy (Ext-A), (2). Office letter for verification of Licence (Ext-B), (3). Report by D.T.O., Aizawl (Ext-C), (4). Office forwarding letter (Ext-D). 8. The learned Tribunal, on the basis of the evidence on record, was pleased to decide the issues in favour of the claimant/appellant. However, the quantum of compensation was determined to be Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty thousand only). 9. The learned counsel for the appellant has brought on record a copy of the order passed by this Court on 21.03.2014 in MAC App. No. 28/2008, MAC App. 27/2008, MAC App. 108/2008, MAC App.77/2011, MAC App. No. 61/2010 and MAC App. No. 38/2010, which arises of the same accident but were filed by the owner of the vehicle who is the respondent No. 1 herein. This Court in the aforesaid case had held that the exoneration of the liability on the part of the insurer is bad in law and accordingly, the said appeals were allowed directing that the compensation awarded shall be payable by the insurer of the vehicle. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the finding of the fact recorded in Exhibit-2 i.e. injury report was that the injuries which the appellant had suffered were grievous in nature. He submits that in view of the gravity of the said injuries, the compensation of Rs. 20,000/- was too meager and it required to be enhanced in accordance with the claim of Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rs. Two lakhs only). 11. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the appellant has referred to various Exhibits and the evidence of PW1 and has submitted that the evidence of grievous injury suffered by the appellant could not be dislodged in course of cross-examination and therefore, the learned Tribunal had erred on facts as well as in law in granting lump sum compensation of Rs. 20,000/- without assessing the actual compensation to which the appellant was entitled to. 12. 20,000/- without assessing the actual compensation to which the appellant was entitled to. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 submits that the award of compensation must be granted in accordance with the nature and proof of injury and the relatable proof of expenditure submitted by the appellant and in the present case in hand, it is a matter of record that the appellant did not consult the Orthopaedic specialist at Silchar Medical College and Hospital as advised and therefore, in the absence of any certificate of disability by a competent authority or a competent Orthopaedic Doctor, the appellant is not entitled to any compensation merely on the basis of oral evidence. 13. It is further submitted that the value of the medicines purchased by the appellant vide cash memos (Ext. 7 series) reflects that the appellant had spent only a sum of Rs. 3041.48p. According to the learned counsel for the respondent No. 2, the discharge certificate (Exhibit-3) demonstrated that the appellant had recovered by the treatment and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to any enhancement of the award. 14. Having considered the rival submission made by the learned counsel for both sides, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity in the decision of the learned Tribunal to the effect that the Exhibit-6 i.e. Prescription dated 01.09.2005 was not related to the accident which occurred on 01.08.2005. On the perusal of the prescription dated 20.08.2005 (Ext-5) and prescription dated 02.03.2005 (Ext-6) shows that there is interpolation of the year in the date. The appellant had taken treatment at Kalain CMC from 01.08.2005 till 13.08.2005. There is no evidence to show that the subsequent treatment availed after 13.08.2005 was in connection with the accident, because no X-ray plate and X-ray report is on record to show that the injury of the victim had not healed, which could be relied for arriving at a finding that the condition of victim, shown to be "improved" in Discharge Certificate (Ext-3) was not correct or that he was on continuous treatment. 15. On perusal of prescriptions by a Doctor (Ext-5), the doctor had advised for X-ray of clavicle and right forearm, but the same was not proved to be done. 15. On perusal of prescriptions by a Doctor (Ext-5), the doctor had advised for X-ray of clavicle and right forearm, but the same was not proved to be done. Therefore, in the absence of any material showing that the injury had not healed, this Court has no material to arrive at a finding that the injury had not healed. There is no evidence on the part of the appellant to link the treatment after 30.08.2005 to the subsequent prescription with the road traffic accident which had occurred on 1.8.2005. Moreover, although in the Exhibit-2, which is the discharge certificate of Kalain CHC there is a reference to fracture and dislocation of right clavicle and arm, but there is no X-Ray plate or X-Ray report showing such fracture and dislocation of the right fore-arm and right clavicle. Moreover, as per the Discharge certificate (Ext. 2), the condition of the appellant had "improved" from the treatment received at the time of his discharge. There is no evidence as to the permanent partial disability of the appellant here in. 16. The learned Tribunal is found to have correctly appreciated the evidence on record and the learned Tribunal had rightly opined that there is no evidence on record that the appellant had consulted one of the two Doctors, whose name is reflected in cash memos of medicine purchased. Therefore, this Court does not see any infirmity in the finding recorded by the learned Tribunal that the medicine purchased vide cash memos [Ext-7, Ext-7(i)] do not have any connection with the accident that took place on 01.08.2005. Moreover, there is no evidence of purchase of any medicines from 01.08.2005 to 07.08.2005. The prescription dated 08.08.2005 by Kalain CHC records the fracture of right arm and right clavicle for the first time, and X-ray is advised. It is not believable that a child of 11 years will be kept as indoor patient from 01.08.2005 till 17.08.2005 and that his fracture at two vital parts of body would not be detected till 08.08.2005. The victim is advised for X-ray on 08.08.2005, but no X-ray plate is available on record. It is not believable that a child of 11 years will be kept as indoor patient from 01.08.2005 till 17.08.2005 and that his fracture at two vital parts of body would not be detected till 08.08.2005. The victim is advised for X-ray on 08.08.2005, but no X-ray plate is available on record. There is no record of application of Plaster of Paris or other treatment for re-joining of fractured areas, but on the contrary the prescription of 13.08.2005 by Kalain CHC mentions that dressing was done, which is apparently not possible if there are actually two fractures suffered by the victim. 17. However, considering the natures of injuries suffered, the learned Tribunal did not believe the oral evidence of the appellant that he had become permanently disabled as a result of the accident making him unable to lift weights and to do much work etc., and accordingly, a lump sum compensation of Rs. 20,000/- was awarded to the appellant along with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing this application till the recovery of compensation. The award was passed only against the respondent No. 1 i.e. owner of the offending vehicle. However, as indicated above, this Court, by order dated 21.03.2004 in MAC App. No. 28/2008 and other connected appeals had held that exoneration of insurer was not sustainable in respect of the present case. No infirmity is found in the assessment/computation of compensation. 18. On the perusal of the five cash memos (Exhibit-7 series), one cash memo dated 08.08.2005 is for Rs. 747.98p, 2nd cash memo dated 13.08.2005 is of Rs. 453.04p. Therefore, during the period when the petitioner was taking the treatment at Kalain CHC, the amount spent was valued at Rs. 1201/- (Rupees One thousand two hundred one only). In the opinion of this Court, as per the contents of Discharge Certificate (Exhibit-3), it shows that the condition of the appellant had improved, therefore, the appellant was required to give some evidence to show that it was because of his injuries suffered in the road traffic accident on 01.08.2005, that he was taking continuous treatment. 19. In view of the discussion above, this Court finds no reason to disagree with the finding of facts recorded by the learned Tribunal and, as such, this Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation in respect of the appellant. Accordingly this appeal fails. 20. 19. In view of the discussion above, this Court finds no reason to disagree with the finding of facts recorded by the learned Tribunal and, as such, this Court is not inclined to enhance the compensation in respect of the appellant. Accordingly this appeal fails. 20. The impugned judgment and award dated 28.03.2007 passed by the learned MACT, Karimganj in MAC Case No. 231/05 is upheld. 21. The parties are left to bear their own costs. Return back the LCR.