JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. B.S. Bhati on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Lalit Kawadia for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal filed against a claim of Rs. 10,000/- granted by the MACT Udaipur. The claimant-respondent Meetha Lal was travelling from Udaipur to Bhinder on 23.11.87. The bus met with an accident resulting in injuries to the claimant respondent. According to the claimant four of his teeth became shaky and he suffered other injuries on the face and knee. He sued for a total compensation of Rs. 1,01,000/- The Tribunal granted the claim for Rs. 10,000/- only. The appellant aggrieved by the grant of claim to the extent of Rs. 10,000/- also, came in this appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no legal evidence of the loss suffered by the claimant. According to the learned counsel only because four teeth became shaky, the respondent was not entitled to even Rs. 10,000/-. He further submits that the Doctor who gave the medical certificate was not examined and there is nothing on record to show that the claimant had suffered any injuries. 4. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that it is not necessary that in every case the doctor should be examined to prove the medical certificate issued by him. He cites a Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court in D. Venu & Ors. v. Senen Fernandes & Ors., (1996 ACJ, 1078) . 5. Having heard the learned counsel and having perused the record, I am satisfied that the amount awarded as compensation is not exorbitant looking to the material on record. After all, the claimant was a young man of 30 years at the time of accident and the accident compelled him to live with shaky teeth for the rest of his life. There is no doubt that he will have to live for well over 30 years with tooth problem. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the amount awarded was exorbitant. It is, after all, in the discretion of the Tribunal to assess the damages and no cut and dry formula can be provided in such cases. I find no force in this appeal. It is dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******