Judgment R.S. Chauhan, J.-The appellants have challenged the award dated 21.05.2005 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Jhalawar whereby the learned Tribunal has awarded a claim for Rs. 2,73,000/-to the respondent-claimant for having suffered injuries in an accident. 2. According to the claimant, he is a farmer by profession. While going on Ramdevara journey, on 26.08.2002 when he was walking on the road, a bus belonging to the appellant-Corporation hit him. Consequently, he suffered eight injuries. The femur bones of both legs were fractured. Thus, he has suffered a permanent disability of 20%. According to him, he can no longer work as a farmer. Hence, his future source of livelihood is adversely affected. Thus, he had filed a claim for Rs. 15,00,000/-from the appellants. 3. In the reply filed by the appellants, they denied the averments made in the claim petition. They further claimed that the accident occurred because of the negligence on the part of the claimant, who was walking in the middle of the road. In order to warn him, the bus driver had blown the horn, but the claimant kept on walking in the middle of the road. Therefore, according to the appellants, the claimant himself was solely responsible for the accident. 4. The learned Tribunal framed four issues in the case. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal was pleased to award the claim as aforementioned. 5. Mr. Virendra Lodha, the learned Counsel for the appellants, vehemently argued that the Disability Certificate shows that the claimant sustained only 20% permanent disability, whereas the learned Tribunal has passed an award assuming that the claimant has sustained about 70-80% disability. He has further contended that the learned Tribunal has awarded the amount in various heads. For example, for injuries Rs. 16,000/-, for fracture of femur bone of both legs Rs. 30,000/-, for permanent disability Rs. 50,000/-. According to him, since the injury occurred only because of the fracture of femur bone and so did the disability, therefore, a single amount should have been paid rather than different amounts. Likewise, different amounts have been paid for the operation undergone by the claimant and for the treatment given to him. Thus, he claimed that the learned Tribunal has paid a disproportionately high compensation to the claimant. 6. We have critically examined the impugned Judgment . Likewise, different amounts have been paid for the operation undergone by the claimant and for the treatment given to him. Thus, he claimed that the learned Tribunal has paid a disproportionately high compensation to the claimant. 6. We have critically examined the impugned Judgment . The learned Tribunal has clearly observed that the claimant was unable to walk into the Court without the help of other persons. Two persons had to being him into the Court so that he could sit on the floor. The learned Tribunal, therefore, concluded that the claimant is unable to walk properly. Thus, his mobility has been adversely affected. The learned Tribunal has also noticed that according to the Disability Certificate, he has suffered disability only to the extent of 20%. Thus, the first contention raised by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Tribunal has wrongly concluded that 70-80% disability occurred is belied by the impugned Judgment itself . The contention has no force. 7. The Tribunal has to keep in mind various factors while passing an award. Firstly, the nature of the injuries sustained by the claimant. Secondly, the expenses borne by him both for the operation, if any and for the treatment undertaken by him. Thirdly, the pain and agony suffered by him. Fourthly, the extent of disability suffered by him. Fifthly, the adverse impact of the injury on the future earning prospect of the claimant. Keeping these factors in mind, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in awarding the compensation in different heads. The claimant had suffered eight injuries including the fracture of both the legs. The learned Tribunal had directed compensation of Rs. 16,000/-@ Rs. 2,000/-per injury. Since, the fractures of femur bones were grievous injuries which adversely affected the working capacity of the claimant, therefore, the learned Tribunal was justified in further awarding Rs. 30,000/-for the said injuries. 8. Moreover, although the permanent disability may be the effect of the injuries sustained, but the learned Tribunal would be justified in awarding a different compensation for permanent disability. After all, a holistic view has to be taken of the situation. It is not merely the injury that needs to be compensated, but more so the extent of the permanent disability that needs to be taken care of . After all, a holistic view has to be taken of the situation. It is not merely the injury that needs to be compensated, but more so the extent of the permanent disability that needs to be taken care of . Considering the fact that the claimant was a farmer, considering the fact that because of the fracture of both the legs, he is unable to move, therefore, the learned Tribunal had rightly concluded that his future prospect of working as a farmer are bleak. Hence, the learned Tribunal was justified in awarding Rs. 50,000/-for the permanent disability suffered by him. Similarly, operation and treatment are two different aspects. Thus, the learned Tribunal was justified in giving two different amounts under these two different heads. Hence, the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal are legally justified. 9. For reasons stated above, the award dated 21.05.2005 is legally valid. There is no merit in the appeal. It is, hereby, dismissed.