JUDGMENT 1. - The only question for determination in this appeal filed by the claimant-appellant under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the award dated 16-11-1996 of the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Udaipur is whether the quantum of damages awarded by the learned Judge, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is, in the facts and circumstances of the case, appropriate and correct? 2. The claimant-appellant was travelling in matador vehicle No. RJ-37/G/0044 on 24-7-1991 driven by Dinesh Kumar, respondent No. 1 who was the driver as well as the owner of the above vehicle. On account of rash and negligent driving, the vehicle overturned and the claimant sustained injuries as mentioned in the injury report. In particular he sustained a fracture of left patela bone. There were also fractures of tibia and fibula of left leg. It may also be stated that according to the report of Dr. G. L. Dad, Medical Jurist the above injuries constituted 44% of permanent disability. These facts are not in dispute. The learned Tribunal examined the evidence produced by the parties and awarded the following damages:- 1. Rs. 5,000/- for permanent disability. 2. Rs. 5,550/- loss of pay of 85 days. 3. Rs. 20,000/- for treatment, pain etc. 4. Rs. 15,470/-for expenses of medicines. 3. The learned Tribunal passed an award, awarding the above damages as against the respondents jointly as well as severally and asked the latter to pay the above amount to the claimant or deposit the same in Court within a period of one month, failing which the respondents were to pay simple interest @ 15% from 2-12-1991. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impact of the injuries, as assessed by the Medical Jurist constituted was 44% permanent disability. At the relevant time the age of the appellant was 25 years and he was working as Lab Assistant and earning Rs. 1,500/- per month. On account of the above injury his left leg was shortened by 3/4" and he also forfeited chances of routine promotion and there is also difficulty in left ankle joint movement. The above injuries have, therefore, reduced his working capacity and also lessened his chances for promotion and placement in his service career. Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that the damages be enhanced reasonably. The above injuries have, therefore, reduced his working capacity and also lessened his chances for promotion and placement in his service career. Learned counsel has, therefore, submitted that the damages be enhanced reasonably. He has placed reliance on two cases namely, Chander Kumar Pahwa v. State of Haryana, 1996 ACJ 537 and Palvinder Singh v. Harsh Kumar Trihan, 1996 ACJ 596 . 6. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that the quantum of damages as assessed by the learned Tribunal is absolutely reasonable and awarded taking into consideration all the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. 7. I have considered the rival contentions. The facts of the cases cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are entirely different and have got no bearing on the facts of the present case. In Dinesh Kumar Pahwa's casey there was amputation of right leg from the knee. The claimant suffered crush injuries and multiple fractures of tibia and fibula with extensive muscle damage of left leg. There were also extensive wounds on the left loin, left side of head, right shoulder and left ear. He remained hospitalised for 319 days and thereafter under hospital care for another 100 days. He also underwent 14 operations including bone grafting and skin grafting. He suffered permanent disability of 90% to 100%. The award of Rs. 4 lacs was made. 8. In Palvinder Singh's case the claimant suffered fractures of right humerus shaft and nazal bone, compound colle's fracture and avulsion of six teeth, permanent disability was 14%. The injured was a final year student of Mechanical Engineering. He remained 47 days in the hospital and underwent three operations. He also lost one academic year. Injury on left hand adversely affected his performance of doing job of Mechanical Engineering which will also have affected on his future prospects. His matrimonial prospects were also married. The award was enhanced from Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 4 lacs. In these two cases though the percentage of permanent disability varied but the other factors as mentioned above had important bearing on the determination of the quantum of damages. In the instant case it is correct that the left of the claimant was shortened by 3/4" causing him limping. The efficiency of left leg has, therefore, considerably reduced. His ankle joint movement has also been adversely affected. In the instant case it is correct that the left of the claimant was shortened by 3/4" causing him limping. The efficiency of left leg has, therefore, considerably reduced. His ankle joint movement has also been adversely affected. The learned Tribunal has observed that there was no evidence that the claimant was denied promotion in his service career. Taking all these into consideration, the assessment made by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be unreasonable or inadequate. I see no ground to interfere with the same. 9. For the above reasons, I do not find any substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******