IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI M.A. No. 515 of 2016 ----- Suraj Kumar (minor) being represented through his father as next friend namely Vikas Sahu @ Vikas Sao, S/o Shri Shankar Sao, R/o Masjid Road, Sons Post: Sons, PS: Chanho, District Ranchi … Appellant(s). Versus 1. Akshay Kumar Soni, S/o Raghunath Sao Soni, At and Post- Latehar, PS-Latehar, District- Latehar (Jharkhand). 2. The New India Assurance Company Limited Branch office Dharamshala road, At and Post Daltonganj -822101 PS Medininagar, District Palamau … Respondent(s). CORAM :SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J. ------ For the Appellant : Mr. Arvind Kr. Lall, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, Advocate …...... 14 /04.02.2025: 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded for the injury which he suffered at the age of six years in a motor vehicle accident involved in Maruti Omni Van bearing registration no. BR-16H-2603. 2. The learned Tribunal awarded the treatment cost of Rs. 13032/- and Rs. 50,000/- for pain and suffering endured by the claimant during course of his treatment. Admittedly, the appellant did not suffer any permanent disability, therefore, no compensation was awarded. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that in the accident he sustained head injury and was admitted at Holy Family Hospital, Mander, Ranchi on 6.5.2007 for treatment and was referred to Rinchi Trust Hospital, Ranchi from where he was discharged on 12.5.2007. 4. The main contention of the appellant is that the ancillary expenses like travelling expenses under the heading of trauma and distress to the entire family was not considered by the learned Tribunal. 5. Mr. Ganesh C. Jha, the learned counsel for the respondents submits that no separate bill was raised for travelling and loss of income incurred to the appellant. 6. From the perusal of the impugned award, it is apparent that Exhibits 6-29 was Bill/Invoice/receipt for purchasing medicines and payment made to the Hospital for a total sum of Rs.13,032/- which was admitted and accepted by the learned Tribunal. Argument being raised is with respect to travelling expenses and other ancillary expenses, which is unsupported by any evidence, which cannot be considered at this stage in the absence of any documentary evidence in support of it. Under the circumstance the appeal is bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed. I.A., if any, stands disposed of. (GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, J.) KNR/Abha