JUDGMENT : Vivek Singh Thakur, J. 1. Instant appeal has been preferred by injured-claimant Ram Kumar (appellant herein) for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as MACT), vide Award dated 30.9.2011, passed in MACP No.30/2009 RBT, titled as Ram Kumar v. Ashok Kumar and others, whereby a lump-sum amount of Rs.7,000/- has been awarded in favour of the appellant as general damages. 2. Respondent No.1 Ashok Kumar is Driver of the offending vehicle, whereas respondent No.2 Chamble Fertilizer and Chemical Ltd. is owner of the said vehicle. Respondent No.3 is Insurer of the offending vehicle. 3. The MACT has fastened liability upon respondent No.3 Insurance Company to indemnify respondent No.2 by depositing the amount of compensation. The Insurance Company has not preferred any appeal. 4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 have also not preferred any appeal against fastening of liability of the accident upon them. Therefore, the only question involved in present case is as to whether appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation in his favour or not. 5. In Claim Petition, Rs.3,00,000/- have been claimed as an amount of compensation. To substantiate his claim, appellant has examined four witnesses. He himself has appeared as PW-1, whereas PW-2 Jaswinder Singh, a Clerk from HRTC, has produced and proved sanction of Special Disability Leave in favour of appellant with effect from 3.2.2003 to 7.4.2003, by placing certified copy of Order Ex.PW-2/A on record. 6. Pw-3 Dr. Rachhpal Singh has proved OPD Slip Ex.PW-3/A, receipt of Consultation Fee of Rs.100/- Ex.PW-3/B pertaining to the treatment of appellant as OPD patient in his Nursing Home at Hoshiarpur. PW-4 Dr. R.K. Garg, Medical Officer, CHC Gagret has proved issuance of Fitness Certificate Ex.PW-4/A, whereby appellant was declared fit by him to resume his duty on 8.4.2003. 7. Claim of appellant is that in the accident, which took place on 3.2.2003, his left leg was fractured and he remained on Earned Leave from 3.2.2003 to 7.4.2003 and has claimed that he has suffered loss of pay for that period, as this amount was payable to him on his retirement. He has claimed that he had spent Rs.50,000/- for his treatment, as he was admitted in Babu Jagjeevan Ram Samark Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and remained under treatment in the hospital at Gagret and in Nursing Home at Hoshiarpur. He has claimed that he had spent Rs.50,000/- for his treatment, as he was admitted in Babu Jagjeevan Ram Samark Hospital, Jahangir Puri, Delhi and remained under treatment in the hospital at Gagret and in Nursing Home at Hoshiarpur. From Medical Fitness Certificate Ex.PW-4/A, it is proved that appellant was not fit for duty with effect from 3.2.2003 to 7.4.2003 and document Ex.PW-2/A proves that appellant was on leave during this period, but contrary to the claim of the appellant, this document also establishes that he had availed Special Disability Leave but not Earned Leave payable on his retirement. No evidence has been brought to indicate, muchless to prove, that Special Disability Leave was also unpaid leave or if paid leave was also payable at the time of retirement, if not availed. 8. So far as medical treatment is concerned, even if documents, not exhibited but only marked, are also taken into consideration, then also contrary to claim of the appellant that he was admitted in the hospital at Delhi, only OPD Slip Mark A-3, dated 3.2.2003, of the said hospital has been placed on record, wherein X-Ray of knee joint has been advised. Another document Mark A-2 is MLC issued by the said hospital on the same date with advice to X-Ray left knee. On this document, there is an opinion of the Expert, i.e. Medical Officer, that injury is simple and caused by blunt weapon. These documents falsify the claim of the appellant that his left leg was fractured in the accident. 9. Appellant has also placed on record Cash Memos/Bills. Cash Memo Ex.P-1, dated 11.2.2003 of Arneja Medical Centre, Hoshiarpur, is for Rs.212/-, receipt Ex.P-2, dated 11.2.2003 is receipt of X-Ray charges of Rs.100/- and Cash Memo Ex.P-4 dated 24.3.2003 is for Rs.4,632/-. There is no other Cash Memo or any other document establishing the expenditure incurred by the appellant. In his statement also, appellant has not explained how and what for Rs.50,000/- has been spent by him for medical treatment. Other documents, i.e. OPD Slips Ex.P-3 and Ex.PW-3/A are not relevant as these documents do not reflect the expenditure born by the appellant. OPD Slip Ex.PW-3/B establishes expenditure of Rs.100/- for consultation with the Doctor. This is entire evidence with respect to the injury suffered by the appellant and expenditure incurred by him for his treatment. 10. Other documents, i.e. OPD Slips Ex.P-3 and Ex.PW-3/A are not relevant as these documents do not reflect the expenditure born by the appellant. OPD Slip Ex.PW-3/B establishes expenditure of Rs.100/- for consultation with the Doctor. This is entire evidence with respect to the injury suffered by the appellant and expenditure incurred by him for his treatment. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has referred pronouncement of the Apex Court in Narendra Singh v. Nishant Sharma and another, (2015) 14 SCC 353 , wherein Rs.50,000/- has been awarded by the Apex Court for pain and suffering and Rs.3,00,000/- for loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, including loss of material prospects and material happiness, along with Rs.50,000/- for convenience charges and cost of attendant in his old age. In the said case Rs.50,000/- has also been awarded for food and nourishment. This judgment is not applicable in the present case, as the claimant therein had suffered amputation of right leg, after operation and had to be operated three more times alongwith plastic surgery on the amputated leg, whereas in present case except simple injury on left knee, there is no evidence of any other injury, muchless grievous, including fracture in the leg. 11. Despite the fact, for beneficial provisions of Legislation, Court should be compassionate to award just and fair compensation to the victim of the accident, enhancement is not possible in the present case, for no evidence on record to substantiate the claim. Hence, Court is constrained to dismiss the present appeal. 12. Accordingly, appeal is dismissed. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of in the same terms.