JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the award dated 26.8.1992 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra awarding a sum of Rs. 1,07,000/- to claimant respondent Meena Kumari. 2. In the claim petition filed it was averred that on 5.11.1988, Parasmal, his two daughters and some other persons were travelling in Jeep No. RRT 767 from Nakoda to Barmer. At 7.30 p.m. when the jeep reached near Siwana Asotra crossing, the Roadways bus No. RNG 806 came from opposite direction and dashed against the jeep. It was sated in the claim petition that the bus was being driven rashly and negligently and though the driver of the jeep had slowed down the jeep and had taken it on the 'kachcha' side yet there was collision. The occupants of the jeep suffered injuries. Meena Kumari who was two years of age only, suffered fractures of her right leg and left hand. It was stated that Rs.10,000/- were spent in treatment and Rs.4,000/- were spent in taking the girl to Ahmedabad for treatment. A sum of Rs.1,50,000/- was claimed. In the reply, the driver and the owner RSRTC denied that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent act of the driver of the bus. It was averred that the amount claimed was excessive. The Tribunal framed 6 issues. Three witnesses were examined on claimant's side and Jethu Singh driver of the Bus gave his statement in rebuttal. The learned Tribunal heard the arguments of both the parties and held under Issue No. 1 & 3 that the accident had occurred because of rash and negligent driving of the bus. Under Issue No. 2 it was held that Meena was entitled to get Rs.5,000/- as treatment expenses, Rs. 2,000/- as other expenses and a sum of Rs. 1 lakh as the general damages, total Rs.1,07,000/ 3. Arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been heard. 4. Mr. Bhati did not assail the finding of the Tribunal that driver of the Roadways bus was responsible for the accident and I think, rightly. His contention was that the amount awarded was excessive and should be reduced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent claimant tried to support the award. 5. A perusal of the record does not show that Meena had suffered permanent disability. His contention was that the amount awarded was excessive and should be reduced. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent claimant tried to support the award. 5. A perusal of the record does not show that Meena had suffered permanent disability. Even there is no evidence on record to hold that Meena could not walk properly or she would suffer pain through out her life or even for some years. The injury report Ex. 8 does not indicate that Meena had suffered injuries on leg and hand. Anyway, the photograph of Meena indicates that there was plaster tied on her leg. There is evidence to this effect that Meena had suffered injuries in the incident. Since it was not a case of permanent disability, the amount awarded is certainly excessive. A sum of Rs. 43,000/- as general damages plus Rs. 7,000/- special damages, total Rs. 50,000/- would be just compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. Consequently, this appeal succeeds, the award is modified and it is directed that the appellant shall pay Rs. 50,000/- with interest as directed by the Tribunal to the claimant respondent as compensation. If any amount was paid under the principle of No Fault Liability, the same shall be deducted from the award amount. The amount shall be paid by Account Payee Cheque only. Out of the amount, a sum of Rs. 40,000/- shall be deposited in some Nationalised Bank as directed by the Tribunal. The remaining amount shall be paid to the father of the girl.Appeal partly allowed. *******