IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR : J U D G M E N T : Smt. Kala Vs. Prem Singh & Another (S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.1016/2010) DATE OF JUDGMENT : December 15, 2010 P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS Mr. P.R. Mehta for the appellant. BY THE COURT : This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed under Section 173, Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of the amount of compensation awarded to the claimant-appellant vide judgment/award dated 23.06.2010 by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Banswara in Claim Case No.224/2008. The basic ground of the appellant is that in the accident that occurred on 15.06.2002, at about 08.05 A.M., at Moja Vakhatpura in the area of Police Station Peepalkhunt, due to rash and negligent driving of Bus No.RJ 01-P-3962 by its driver Prem 2 Singh; and, due to said accident, claimant-appellant received multiple injuries, therefore, she filed an application under Section 166 of the Act for seeking compensation of Rs.9,00,000/-. After taking into consideration entire facts of the case and evidence adduced, the Tribunal found that the claimant is entitled for compensation in the sum of Rs.61,260/- along with interest at the rate of 9% from the date of filing claim i.e., 04.08.2008. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that award impugned is totally illegal and has no foundation to stand because it is not based on proper application of mind to the evidence on record. I have perused the impugned award. While deciding issue No.2, it is observed by the Tribunal that no evidence has been adduced by the appellant except one receipt of X-ray, Ex.-11, for payment of Rs.60/-; but, the learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the age and income of the appellant found that in absence of any documentary evidence with regard to admission in hospital and discharge certificate issued from the hospital or any other 3 evidence, it cannot be said that injuries sustained in the accident by the appellant serious in nature. As per evidence, it is borne out that there is only one facture of clavicle bone and in that regard 15 to 20 per cent disability certificate Ex.-9 is issued. In my opinion, the assessment made by the learned Tribunal for granting compensation of Rs.61,260/- is not erroneous. More so, in absence of any documentary evidence, the Tribunal has rightly arrived at the finding that appellant is entitled for compensation of said amount. In this view of the matter, there is no good ground for interference in the impugned award. Hence, this appeal is hereby dismissed. (Gopal Krishan Vyas) J. Ojha, a.