JUDGMENT : 1. The present misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘MV Act’) by the appellant/claimant for enhancement of compensation and modification of the judgment and award dated 03.04.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sirohi (‘Tribunal’) in MAC No. 58/2013, whereby the learned Tribunal partly allowed the claim petition and awarded Rs. 55,350/- to the claimants along with interest @ 7.5% per annum. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 12.11.2012, the appellant/ claimant was traveling along with Surajpal Singh, Evan Kanwar, Mohan Kanwar and Chandan Singh in the Indica car bearing number RJ-01-CA-2296, to Hadmatiya village when the said vehicle collided with respondent no. 1’s Commander jeep bearing number RJ-24-UA-0745, at a turn near Anapur School. On account of the said collision, the appellant/claimant along with Surajpal Singh suffered injuries and Chandan Singh, Evan Kanwar and Mohan Kanwar died. Pursuant to the said accident, a case was registered at the Police Station, Revdar bearing number, CR No. 107/12.11.2012 and claim was filed under Section 166 of the MV Act before the learned Tribunal bearing number, 58/2013. 3. Despite the service of notice to the owner of the offending vehicle, the owner did not remain present before the learned Tribunal and thus, the matter was heard ex-parte the owner of the offending vehicle. After hearing the parties, The learned Tribunal framed 4 issues including relief, which are as follows: 4. Thereafter, the AW.1, Surajpal Singh and AW.2 Shripal Singh were examined by the appellant/claimant and Exb.1 to Exb. 96 were also produced, while respondent no. 1 and 2 examined NAW-1, Sompuri alias Sohan Puri. No oral and documentary evidence was produced by the respondent no. 3 and 4. 5. After hearing the matter, the learned Tribunal observed that the appellant/claimant suffered 3 injuries in his jaw and his back, which are simple in nature and thus, was awarded Rs. 3,000/- for the said injuries along with Rs. 13,849/- (rounding up to Rs. 13,850/-) against the medical bills incurred by the appellant/claimant. Learned Tribunal also awarded Rs. 3,000/- for the 6 days during which the appellant/claimant was admitted in the hospital, Rs. 3,000/- towards the transportation charges, Rs. 3,000/- towards his medicines and Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and sufferings caused to the appellant/claimant on account of the said accident and Rs. 13,850/-) against the medical bills incurred by the appellant/claimant. Learned Tribunal also awarded Rs. 3,000/- for the 6 days during which the appellant/claimant was admitted in the hospital, Rs. 3,000/- towards the transportation charges, Rs. 3,000/- towards his medicines and Rs. 25,000/- towards pain and sufferings caused to the appellant/claimant on account of the said accident and Rs. 4,500/- for the loss of income for the 6 days when the appellant/claimant had been admitted in the hospital. Thus, the learned Tribunal held the respondents liable jointly and severally to pay Rs. 55,350/- in total to the appellant/claimant. 6. Thus, aggrieved of the amount of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the appellant has preferred the present appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in awarding such a meagre amount since the appellant/claimant has clearly suffered a grievous injury and the amount so awarded is not just in the light of the grievous injury suffered by the appellant/claimant. He further submits that the learned Tribunal has itself observed that the appellant/claimant has suffered 10% permanent disability as per the Disability Certificate (Exb.87), however the amount has been awarded at a much lower side. He also submits that loss of future income ought to have been considered by the learned Tribunal while awarding the compensation. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the learned Tribunal had awarded a just compensation since the appellant/claimant had suffered only three injuries, which were simple in nature and thus, the award so passed by the learned Tribunal requires no modification. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. This Court finds that though the learned Tribunal has acknowledged that the appellant/claimant has suffered 10% permanent disability as per the Disability Certificate (Exb.87), it has also observed that no evidence has been produced to demonstrate whether the said Disability Certificate is in accordance with Second Schedule of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923. It was also observed by the learned Tribunal that no evidence was produced to demonstrate that the appellant/claimant has suffered loss to his earning capacity on account of such injuries suffered. 11. It was also observed by the learned Tribunal that no evidence was produced to demonstrate that the appellant/claimant has suffered loss to his earning capacity on account of such injuries suffered. 11. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has also observed that the Doctor has examined the X-ray of the injuries of the appellant/claimant and upon perusal of the said report, it was found that there were 3 injuries and the nature of injuries suffered by the appellant/claimant were simple. This Court thus, finds that the learned Tribunal, in the absence of sufficient evidence to prove the occurrence of grievous injury, has rightly held that the appellant/claimant has suffered three simple injuries and have awarded the compensation accordingly. 12. This Court also finds that the learned Tribunal has not erred in assessing the compensation towards the disability suffered by the appellant/claimant and the appellant/claimant has also not disputed the nature of the injury, i.e. simple, in his memo of appeal and that there is nowhere mentioned in the appeal that the injuries are grievous in nature. Therefore, no enhancement can be granted to the appellant/claimant in the award passed by the learned Tribunal for the reason that the disability certificate specifying the nature of injuries to simple has been rightly passed and considered by the learned Tribunal. 13. Thus, it is seen that the learned Tribunal has done complete justice to the beneficial legislation that MV Act is, and has awarded a just compensation in the light of evidence produced, including the disability certificate (Exb.87) specifying the nature of injuries to be simple, before the learned Tribunal, while also awarding Rs. 25,000/- for pain and suffering caused to the appellant/claimant along with Rs. 13,850 for the medical expenses incurred, Rs. 4,500/- for the loss of income during the period of 6 days for which the appellant/claimant was hospitalized, Rs. 3,000/- towards his hospitalization, Rs. 6,000/- towards his diet and transportation. This Court thus, finds no reason to grant indulgence in the present appeal inasmuch as the learned Tribunal has rightly taken into account all the factors while awarding compensation to the appellant/claimant for the three simple injuries suffered by him due to the said accident. 14. The impugned award dated 03.04.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal, Sirohi in Claim Case No.58/2013 does not suffers from any illegality or any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference therein. 15. 14. The impugned award dated 03.04.2017 passed by the learned Tribunal, Sirohi in Claim Case No.58/2013 does not suffers from any illegality or any infirmity whatsoever warranting interference therein. 15. Consequently, the instant misc. appeal is dismissed. 16. No order as to costs.