R. K. VERMA, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the owner of the bus No. MPU-5059 directed against the award dated 9-5-1984 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dhar in Claim Case No. 116/81 whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 8,000/- as compensation to the injured claimant - respondent No. 1, in respect of the injured sustained by her in an accident caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus in question by its driver Rajendra Singh, Respondent No. 2. ( 2 ) ACCORDING to the case of the claimant, who is a minor girl, aged about 8 years, On 6-6-1981 at about 8-00 a. m. while she was standing near a hand-cart along with other children for purchasing mangoes on the left-side of the road at village Guljhere, the offending bus in question, being driven by driver Respondent No. 2, in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against her as a result of which she sustained a fracture in the right femur bone as well as a linear fracture of parietal bone. The claimant remained admitted in District Hospital, Dhar for treatment for about 2 months and in spite of the medical treatment, she has incurred permanent physical disability. ( 3 ) ON a claim petition having been filed by the claimant, the learned Tribunal on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case, found that the claimant sustained grievous injuries in the motor accident, which was caused due to rash and negligent driving of the bus No. MPU-5059 belonging to the appellant Narendrakumar and being driven by his employee-driver Rajendrasingh at the time of the accident. As regards the injuries sustained by the claimant, the learned Tribunal found that it was not proved that the claimant has incurred a permanent disability on account of the injuries sustained in the said accident. The learned Tribunal assessed compensation for pain and suffering on account of the injuries suffered by the claimant at Rs. 7,000/- and estimated the cost of medical treatment given to the claimant at Rs. 1,000/ -. Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs. 8,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded against the owner and the driver of the bus in question. Being aggrieved by the award, the owner of the bus has filed this appeal. 7,000/- and estimated the cost of medical treatment given to the claimant at Rs. 1,000/ -. Accordingly, a total compensation of Rs. 8,000/- together with interest @ 6% per annum has been awarded against the owner and the driver of the bus in question. Being aggrieved by the award, the owner of the bus has filed this appeal. The claimant on the other hand, has filed a cross-objection praying for enhancement of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence and the award passed by the learned Tribunal, we have come to the conclusion that this appeal as well as the cross-objection, deserve to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the identity of the bus in question has not been established The basis of his contention is that the First Information Report dated 6-6-1981 (Ex. C/2) mentioned the number of the bus as MPO-5059 instead of MPU-5059. However, the First Information Report also mentions that the bas belonged to 'pawan Travels'. The description, therefore, sufficiently fixes the identity of the bus in question and minor mistake, apparently due to oversight in mentioning the letter 'o' instead of 'u' can be of no help to the appellant for disputing the identity and involvement of the bus in question in the accident. The contention is, therefore, devoid of substance and is rejected. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the claimant-respondent in support of the cross-objection has submitted that the learned Tribunal while assessing compensation has not taken into account the permanent disability incurred by the claimant pursuant to the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The claimant has produced no medical evidence to prove permanent physical disability - as alleged by her. In the circumstances, we see no good reason to take a view different from that taken by the learned Tribunal on the question of permanent disability which cannot be held proved on the basis of evidence on record. The cross-objection for enhancement of compensation to the claimant, based on the allegation of permanent disability is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. ( 6 ) IN the result, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed. The cross-objection of the claimant-respondent is also dismissed. There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed. .