// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1128/2001 Udami Son of Shri Om Prakash Versus Murari Lal S/o Shri Bansidhar and Others Date of Order ::: 26.11.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Neeraj, Advocate, for Shri Ravi Shankar Sharma, Counsel for appellant Shri Keshav Agarwal, Counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 Shri Rohitas Choudhary, Advocate, for Shri P. Balwada, Counsel for respondent No.3 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for the parties. Admit. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the appeal was heard finally and is being disposed of. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in a motor-accident took place on 1st February, 1999, and being aggrieved with the impugned Award dated 16th March, 2001 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Behror, District Alwar in Claim Case No.114/1999, whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.3,000/- in his favour. The learned counsel for the appellant // 2 // contended that the injured-appellant was only 13 years of age at the time of the accident and, as per the permanent-disability-certificate, he sustained 0.5% permanent disability but the learned Tribunal wrongly recorded a finding that, according to it, there is no permanent disability suffered by the appellant in the case, therefore, the impugned Award is liable to be set-aside and the amount of compensation may be enhanced. The learned counsel for the respondents defended the impugned Award and contended that, looking to the number and nature of injuries, the amount of compensation awarded in the present case is just and reasonable and no interference in it is called for. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and examined the impugned Award and the record of the learned Tribunal. Exhibit-5 is the injury-report of injured wherein two injuries have been mentioned; injury No.2 is an abrasion and has been shown as simple in nature; nothing has been mentioned about injury No.1 as to whether it was simple or grievous. From the record it appears that no X- ray report has been placed on the record meaning thereby, no X-ray of the appellant was taken and in absence thereof it could not be opined that // 3 // nature of the Injury No.1 was grievous or simple. The learned Tribunal has observed that there is no fracture sustained by the appellant in the case. I have also examined Exhibit-10, the permanent disability-certificate, which was issued on the basis of medical-examination of the appellant took place on 9th October, 1999 whereas the accident in question relates to 1st February, 1999. As per this certificate, the permanent disfigurement has been stated to have been suffered by the appellant as 0.5%. The Tribunal has observed that in fact there was no permanent disability suffered by the appellant. The learned Tribunal, in the facts and circumstances of the case, awarded Rs.3,000/- as compensation in favour of the appellant. After considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, the finding of the learned Tribunal and the record of the case, I am of the view that the impugned Award passed by the learned Tribunal, is perfectly justified and no interference in it is called for. In view of the above discussions, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//