JUDGMENT The appellant-claimant has filed the appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the increase of the amount of Award dated 24.12.2003 in Claim Case No. 138/2002 passed by learned Fourth Member of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore wherein the amount of Rs. 30,740/- carrying the interest @ 8% p.a. from the date of the filing of the claim petition was provided to the appellant. The case of the claimant is that on 18.7.2002 at about 10:00 a.m. when the claimant was going on his cycle to Rustam Ka Bagicha, Indore, the Scooter No. MP09-JN-6938 which was driven rashly and negligently by respondent No.1 Rameshwar Gupta, hit the claimant and in the accident the right ankle of the appellant was fractured and he has received the permanent disability. That the appellant is aged 30 years of age and doing the work of painting. The appellant has prayed for the amount of Rs.3,00,000/- from the respondent No.1 and the insurer respondent No.2. The respondent No. 1 remained ex-parte and the case of the respondent No.2 Insurance Company is that the Scooter of respondent No. J has not hit the appellant and appellant has not received the permanent disability. That the respondent No.1 was driving the Scooter without holding a valid licence and as such on account of breach of the terms of the policy, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the amount. The learned Tribunal after framing issues and recording the evidence has held that the injury to the appellant was caused on account of rash and negligent driving and the respondents were directed to pay the alleged amount jointly and severally with interest to the appellant. The appellant has prayed for the: enhancement on the ground that the learned Tribunal has not provided him all the expenses incurred in his medical treatment and the amount for the loss of wages were also not provided to the appellant. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the appellant has produced the bills of only Rs. 3,000/- to prove the expenditure in his medical treatment and the evidence of the doctor to prove the permanent disability is doubtful and as such the prayer of the enhancement should be rejected. Dr. On the other hand, the contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is that the appellant has produced the bills of only Rs. 3,000/- to prove the expenditure in his medical treatment and the evidence of the doctor to prove the permanent disability is doubtful and as such the prayer of the enhancement should be rejected. Dr. Pradecp Choudhary has slated that the claimant was examined by him and there was 22% permanent disability on account of the fracture in his right ankle. It is admitted by doctor in his cross-examination that the bone has united and by physiotherapy the permanent disability was curable. Consequently from the admission of Dr. Pradeep Choudhary it is clear that this is a case of temporary disability. The alleged disability is curable after the physiotherapy. The appellant claimant has produced the medical bills to prove the expenses of only Rs. 3,740/-. The appellant is a painter and it is on the record that he remained in the hospital only for two days. There is no evidence that on account of the fracture of the ankle he was unable to do the work properly. The amount of Rs. 30,740/- for the single simple fracture is just, proper and adequate. The appeal for the enhancement is hereby dismissed as it has no force. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.