JUDGMENT : D.M. Patnaik, J. - This appeal is by one Giridhari Behera the owner of one Rajdoot motorcycle bearing registration No. OAS-9347. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the M.A.C.T., Sambalpur awarding a sum of Rs. 18,OOO/- as compensation against him for the injuries sustained by the girl named Bati Sahu aged 9 years, due to his rash and negligent driving, has approached the Court. 2. Case of the claimant is that on 14-5-91 'in the morning on the village road while the said Bati aged 9 years was playing near the house of one Kartika Sahu, the present Appellant drove his above motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, as a result of which she sustained bodily injuries and was treated in the S.S.S. Medical College, Burla for a period of three and half months. 3. In reply to the claim petition the opposite party filed written statement where he did not take the stand that the vehicle was at all insured with any' Insurance Company. On the other hand, defense was that while he was driving motorcycle at a low speed at that time said Bati, Sahu on her own dashed against stationary motorcycle and sustained injuries. The other facts relating to the accident and the resultant injuries were also denied. 4. The Tribunal framed the following issues: 1. Whether the accident took place on 14-5-91 due to rash and negligent driving of the Rajdoot M.C. No. OAS-9347 resulting injuries on the person of Kumari Bati Sahu ? 2. Whether the applicant is entitled to get any compensation? If so, to what extent and from whom? 5. Claimant examined four witnesses including I Dr. Debendra Kumar Behera who certified and proved the injuries as per Ext. I, the discharge certificate. Learned Tribunal after considering the evidence of witnesses came to finding that the Bati was aged 9 years and that she sustained injuries because of rash and negligent driving by the Appellant. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has strenuously I urges before this Court that in absence of Insurance Company as a party, the award is,illegal. Further, it is also submitted that p. w, 2 s evidence is clear that he was not in a position to witness the accident. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has strenuously I urges before this Court that in absence of Insurance Company as a party, the award is,illegal. Further, it is also submitted that p. w, 2 s evidence is clear that he was not in a position to witness the accident. It is also contended that p. w. 3 was not the doctor who examined Bati at the first instance and therefore was not competent to speak of the injuries. Miss D, Mohapatra appearing for the claimant submits that the award has been rather low in view of the nature of the injuries sustained by girl aged 9 years. Sale supported the award of the Tribunal. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for both sides and going through the impugned award, I do not find anything unfair in the award. Learned Tribunal has considered all the materials on record and has rightly come to the conclusion. On going through the written statement; it is found that' the Appellant as the owner of the motor cycle did not take the stand that the vehicle at the time of accident was covered 'under an Insurance policy. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in saddling the compensation so awarded on the Appellant. 8. So far as the factual aspect with regard to rash and negligent driving is concerned, the Appellant in the written statement took specific plea that he brought the motorcycle to almost a halt and thereafter Bati Sahu on of her own negligence dashed against it. But surprisingly in cross-examination of p. w. 1 it was suggested from his side that she fell down at a distance of 2 to 4 cubits away from the motorcycle. Because of the inconsistent plea in his defense his case of contributory negligence of Bati cannot be accepted. This rather strengthened the case of the claimant that the accident occurred because of rash and negligent driving by the Appellant. Therefore no merit in the appeal and the Misc. Appeal is dismissed. 9. Heard Miss Mohapatra in the matter of cross-objection filed by the claimant for enhancement of the awarded amount. On going through the materials on record and for the reasons indicated above, I do not find there is any justification for enhancement of the awarded amount. The cross-objection is also dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. Misc. appeal and Cross objection dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed