JUDGMENT
Narendra Kumar Jain, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant.
2. The injured appellant has filed this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by her in an accident, which took place on 12.6.1989 arising out of use of motor vehicle, whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 as compensation in favour of the appellant.
3. Learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant contended only one submission that in this accident she suffered severe injuries resulting in miscarriage on her, but no compensation has been awarded for the same by the Tribunal, Therefore, a suitable amount of compensation may be awarded.
4. I have considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant as well as the finding of the learned Tribunal in respect of issue Nos. 1 and 3 and also the entire record of the Tribunal.
5. While deciding issue No. 1, the learned Tribunal has recorded a finding that from the evidence available on record, it is not proved that the abortion, took place because of injuries sustained by her in motor accident. It has been observed that there was no reference about the abortion in the claim application, which was filed initially in 1989 and this fact was brought on record by way of amendment made in the claim application after three years i.e., July, 1992. The Tribunal has further observed that Ex. 3 sonography report was given by Assistant Professor of Janana Hospital, but said doctor was not examined in the matter. Exs. 7, 8 and 9 prove that appellant was treated by doctor Smt. Sadhana Kaul, but the said doctor was not examined in the matter. One Dr. Rajendra Kumar Sharma was examined, but he did not give any treatment to her and he had already been retired 12 years ago, therefore, the Tribunal did not rely upon his testimony. Learned Counsel for the claimant-appellant is not in a position to satisfy this Court as to why this fact of abortion was not mentioned in the original claim application and why the claim application was amended after three years. He is also not in a position to explain as to why treating doctor was not examined in the present matter and why doctor, who gave sonography report was not examined on behalf of the applicant.
6. While deciding issue No. 3, the learned Tribunal held that as per injury report Ex. 1 and x-ray report Ex. 2, the appellant sustained four injuries which were simple in nature. The Tribunal, therefore, awarded Rs. 4,000 for four simple injuries. Ex. 11 to Ex. 31 were bills of medicines amounting to Rs. 622.91, whereas the Tribunal awarded Rs. 6,000 on account of medicines and for other expenses and thus awarded total compensation of Rs. 10,000.
7. I have also examined the statement of the applicants witness as well as documentary evidence placed on record in the present case and after their perusal, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the finding recorded by the Tribunal.
8. There is no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.