JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant has challenged the award dated 12.4.2001 by which the learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner granted the award of Rs. 72,900/- to the claimant-respondents, on account of the injuries suffered by the claimants in an accident which occurred on 19.7.1996 and accident was caused by the rash and negligent driving of Jeep No. RJI 2121 of the appellant's driver. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Srichand Tyagi was hit by the above mentioned jeep when he was standing near a shop for repairing of his motor-cycle. Driver Nusrat Ali was driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. The claimant respondent claimed Rs. 3,20,300/- alongwith interestfrom the driver and the owner of the vehicle it is said that claimant suffered fracture in Tibia and Fibula of his right leg. Tne claimant remained admitted in hospital from 19.7.1996 to 2.8.1996. 3. The appellant submitted reply to the claim petition and admitted the ownership of the Jeep and the appellant stated that Nusrat All was appointed on the post of helper. He was holding a valid driving licence. it is stated that ne was not appointed as driver by the appellant and appellant had never given any permission to Nusrat Ali to drive the vehicle However, it is admitted by the claimant that appellant sent Nusrat Ali with the driver of the vehicle who went for getting the vehicle repaired on the fateful day. it is stated that he was travelling with the driver as helper only. 4. The alleged driver Nusrat Ali also submitted his reply and denied that he was driving the vehicle and also stated that he was not appointed as driver. 5. The Tribunal, after going through the evidence lead by both the parties, held that non-appellant Nusrat Ali was driving the jeep of the appellant at the relevant time. He was driving jeep rashly and negligently and he hit the claimant resulting into simple and grievous injuries on the person of the claimant. The Tribunal also held that appellant is also vicariously liable for the loss caused to the claimant. The Tribunal considered the evidence of the parties and, thereafter. awarded Rs. 24.000/- on account of loss of income of the claimant for 8 months and awarded Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. The Tribunal also held that appellant is also vicariously liable for the loss caused to the claimant. The Tribunal considered the evidence of the parties and, thereafter. awarded Rs. 24.000/- on account of loss of income of the claimant for 8 months and awarded Rs. 20,000/- for pain and suffering. The Tribunal also awarded Rs. 10,000/- as compensation to the claimant for regaining his working capacity etc. In total Rs. 72,900/- with interest @ 9% was awarded to the claimant. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since respondent No 2 was not regular employee-driver of the vehicle, therefore, the appellant is not liable and the respondent No. 2 is personally liable. It is also submitted that the award passed against the appellant is too excessive. 7. Perused the record and after considering the arguments of both the counsel, it is clear from the facts of the case, that claimant suffered injuries because of the accident caused by respondent No. 2 Nusrat Ali, while driving the vehicle rashly and negligently. This fact cannot be disputed, in view of the reason that the claimant was hit when he was standing near the shop only. It appears from the reply of the appellant filed before the Tribunal that, in fact, he was given permission to drive the vehicle and since Nusrat Ali was not appointed on the post of driver by the appellant, therefore, it has been stated that Nusrat All was sent with the driver, who went to repair the vehicle. The plea itself is unusual and the appellant has not given any reasons, as to what was the necessity of sending Nusrat All with the driver of the vehicle who was going to get the vehicle repaired. 8. Therefore, I do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that appellant is not liable. 9. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the appellant has not only given his statement but also produced Dr. Rakesh Bhargava who deposed that claimant respondent remained admitted in the hospital from 19.7.1996 to 2.8.1996 and two operations were performed for the fracture caused by the accident. A nail was put in the body of the claimant. It is stated that thereafter the patient was required to remain with plaster for one month. Three months is the normal is the normal time for fixing the bone. A nail was put in the body of the claimant. It is stated that thereafter the patient was required to remain with plaster for one month. Three months is the normal is the normal time for fixing the bone. In view of the above statement of Dr. Rakesh Bhargava, it is clearly proved that claimant suffered fracture of the Tibia-Fibula and rod was put in the body of the claimant The Tribunal awarded the compensation of loss of income of eight months accepting the income of claimant as Rs. 3,000/- per month as the claimant was a broker in the business city of Loonkaransar. In view of the above, I do not find that the Tribunal has awarded excess amount under any of the heads. 10. in view of the above discussion. I do not find any force in this appeal. therefore. the appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******