1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.4946/2008 {Kumari Nyali Versus Ram Chandra & Others} Date of Order :: 10th December, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Sandeep Mathur for the appellant BY THE COURT: Heard learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The injured-appellant has preferred this appeal for enhancement of the amount of compensation in respect of injuries sustained by him in motor accident took place on 13th May, 1995 and being aggrieved with the impugned award dated 10th July, 2008 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2 and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk in Claim Case No. 289/2008 (155/2001), whereby the learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs. 6,000/- in his favour. 3. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that at the stage of arguments on an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the appellant 2 submitted a permanent disability certificate wherein 9% permanent disability was shown in the case and Tribunal passed interim award of Rs. 25,000/-, but ultimately the learned Tribunal disbelieved the permanent disability certificate and passed an order that after deducting Rs. 6000/- awarded as compensation, rest amount will be paid to the Insurance Company. He, therefore, submits that the award regarding refund of the amount may be set-aside and amount of compensation may be enhanced upto Rs. 25,000/- already paid to the appellant. 4. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in the light of finding recorded by the Tribunal. 5. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant did not dispute that as per Injury Report (Ex.-5), the appellant sustained only 5 simple injuries. The appellant did not sustain any fracture out of any injury sustained by him. The Tribunal considered Ex.-11 permanent disability certificate in the light of Injury Report (Ex.- 5) of the appellant and observed that it was not possible that the appellant would have suffered 9% permanent disability looking to the nature of injuries and consequently he passed 3 an order that a copy of this order may be sent to the concerned authority for making an enquiry against the concerned Doctor, who issued the permanent disability certificate in the matter. 6. After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly that appellant sustained only 5 simple injuries and no medical bill was produced in the case nor appellant sustained any fracture nor he remained admitted in the hospital, the amount of Rs. 6000/- awarded in the present case appears to be just and reasonable. The Tribunal was fully justified in passing an order of enquiry in the matter. Looking to the nature and number of injury sustained by the appellant, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted to enhance the amount of compensation to Rs. 25,000/- already paid to the appellant under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The amount was paid at the stage of interim compensation on the basis of Ex.-11 - Permanent Disability Certificate, which was ultimately not found to be genuine by the Tribunal and I do not find any illegality in the finding of the learned Tribunal in this regard. 4 7. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. (NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN),J. DK