JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 31.3.1992 of the IV Addl. Member, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Indore, passed in Claim Case No. 66 of 1988 whereby the respondent has been awarded compensation of Rs. 20,000/- in all. 2. The brief history of the case is that respondent was going along with his father Sarjuprasad. He was sitting on the pillion of the motor cycle which was being driven by his father. That motor cycle met with an accident and dashed against a bus owned by the appellant No. 1 here. Sarjuprasad died on the spot. This respondent sustained injuries on his leg and other parts of the body. 3. The claim by and on behalf of the legal representatives of Sarjuprasad including this appellant was filed and was registered as Claim Case No. 65 of 1988 and a separate claim was filed on behalf of this respondent-claimant which was registered as Claim Case No. 66 of 1988. Both these claim cases have been decided by one and the same judgment referred to above. Learned Tribunal has dealt with the case of present respondent-claimant in paras 20, 21 and 22 of its judgment and has awarded Rs. 20,000 as compensation for all the injuries and for the loss including compensation for permanent partial disability to the tune of 8 per cent. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the compensation awarded is on higher side. Respondent was a boy nearly 16 years of age and, therefore, that much amount ought not have been awarded. 5. As against it, learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that there was a permanent partial disability to the tune of 8 per cent and if it is calculated with the multiplier of 15, the amount would be more than what has been awarded. 6. The fact of accident in the case and the negligent driving has not been challenged as there is no appeal against the Claim Case No. 65 of 1988. The only point for determination is as to whether the compensation awarded is proper and adequate. 7. My attention was drawn to the statement of Dr. D.K. Taneja, AW 8. Dr. D.K. Taneja has very clearly stated that there was a permanent partial disability and the same was calculated according to Mac Bried formula to the tune of 8 per cent. 7. My attention was drawn to the statement of Dr. D.K. Taneja, AW 8. Dr. D.K. Taneja has very clearly stated that there was a permanent partial disability and the same was calculated according to Mac Bried formula to the tune of 8 per cent. Learned Tribunal in para 20 of its judgment has found that there were fractures of tibia and fibula both. For this Dr. Taneja has not been cross-examined, that is to say, the statement of Dr. Taneja has not at all been challenged.