JUDGMENT R.S. Garg, J. 1. In a case of accident, the respondent No. 1, a young boy of about 14 years, after suffering fractures in both the legs, filed a claim petition. According to the claimant, the driver of the vehicle was rash and negligent and by such act met with an accident leading to injuries to the claimant. The driver of the vehicle in his pleadings submitted that he was carrying a heart patient, therefore, he was driving at a moderate speed; neither he was rash nor he was negligent. He also submitted that three boys were going on two different cycles and by their own negligence, they met with an accident. The insurance company also denied its liability. After recording evidence and healing the parties, the trial court made the award in favour of respondent No. 1. Being dissatisfied by the said award, the insurance company has filed this appeal. 2. In the appeal, it is contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was no cogent evidence available on the record to record a finding that the claimant suffered fractures, the court below was unnecessarily influenced by the alleged fractures and without applying any standard of law, awarded Rs. 80,000 towards general damages and Rs. 10,000 towards the medical expenses. According to the counsel, the award suffers from the vice of excessiveness. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Chakraborty, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 submits that the insurance company would not be permitted to raise the questions regarding negligence or quantum because the defences available to the insurance company are always limited. He also submits that the evidence on record clearly proves that the respondent No. 1 suffered fractures in both the legs and even on the date when he appeared as a witness in the court, he came with the assistance of crutches. 4. Mr. Koshy, learned Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that in any case, they are not answerable to the claim made by the respondent No. 1. 5. The evidence on record clearly proves that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and while vehicle was being so driven, it met with an accident in which respondent No. 1 suffered various injuries, including fractures in both the legs. 5. The evidence on record clearly proves that the vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently and while vehicle was being so driven, it met with an accident in which respondent No. 1 suffered various injuries, including fractures in both the legs. The evidence on record clearly proves that the respondent No. 1 has suffered 20 per cent partial permanent disability. If a young boy of 14 years who has to see the life, suffers fractures in both the legs, has to use the crutches for a long time and has suffered 20 per cent partial permanent disability, then it cannot be said that award of Rs. 80,000 to him would suffer from the vice of being excessive. In the opinion of this Court, the court below was justified in awarding the amount of Rs. 80,000 under general damages. 6. So far as the award of Rs. 10,000 towards medical expenses is concerned, in the opinion of this Court, the said award is also justified. It can never be argued that a person who has suffered fractures in both the legs and other injuries, was not required to pay for the medical help and assistance. In cases of damages, a court is always required to make some guess work and if the guess work is reasonable and probable, the appellate court would not be justified in interfering with the discretion exercised by the trial court. Even otherwise, the insurance company is not entitled to raise its objections on the ground of negligence and quantum. If the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 who were represented in the trial court and are also represented in the appellate court do not challenge the said findings or the quantum, then the insurance company is only entitled to raise the plea which will be available to it under the Act. 7. Considering the case from every angle, this Court is of the opinion that there appears to be no good cause to interfere with the findings recorded by the trial court or to reduce the amount awarded in favour of respondent No. 1. 8. The appeal deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. C.C. as per rules.