Judgment Ajay Rastogi, J.- Both the appeals are being disposed of by this Judgment as they arise out of common Award dated 30.07.2002 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kota ("Tribunal") in Claim Petitions No. 1156/1998 (435/1997) & 1157 of 1998 (436/1997), whereby the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.20,365/- and Rs.12,000/- respectively in favour of Rampratap and Peerulal, and further directed to recover excess amount already paid by respondent Insurance Company under no-fault liability as per interim Award of the Tribunal. 2. Claim petitions were filed by Rampratap & Peerulal with the assertions that on 29.03.1997 at 10.30 A.M., they were going on motor bike from Raithal to Kota and when reached near Village Dehra on Kota-Baran Road, offending truck No. RPF 8918 being driven rashly & negligently by its driver Usman (respondent No. 1) collied with their motorbike causing multiple injuries to each of them. First information report of the accident was lodged at PS Kaithun. As alleged, Rampratap was driving motor bike and Pirulal was pillion rider, and in the accident, Rampratap sustained five injuries out of which, as per injury & x-ray reports (Exhibits-5 and 6), injury Nos. 1 & 2 were found to be grievous, for which he remained in hospital for 10-15 days. As per certificate (Exhibit 18), 18% disability was detected on account of injuries sustained on the person of injured Rampratap. After taking note of material on record, the Tribunal recorded finding that disability certificate (Exhibit-18) seems to have been interpolated by over-writing at the instance of someone in the column of percentage of disability and that apart, doctor has appeared in witness box to prove it and did not deny to have issued disability certificate, but disputed the figure "18" recorded in the certificate as percentage of disability which according to him was not written by him. 3. As regards claim petition filed by Peerulal, he sustained three injuries as per injury report (Exhibit-19), and due to injury No. 1, 15% disability has caused to him as would be evident from certificate (Exhibit-22). But this certificate (Exhibit-22) was not believed on the premises that it was not in the proforma and was incomplete. Other injuries which Peerulal sustained on the shoulder resulting into restricted movements, were not considered to be of such which may cause him disability of permanent nature. But this certificate (Exhibit-22) was not believed on the premises that it was not in the proforma and was incomplete. Other injuries which Peerulal sustained on the shoulder resulting into restricted movements, were not considered to be of such which may cause him disability of permanent nature. However, the certificate (Exhibit-22) issued by competent authority was not disputed by either side. 4. Thus, in both the claim petitions, the Tribunal proceeded on the basis of respective injury & x-ray reports, and after taking note of other material on record, awarded the compensation as indicated in first para of this Judgment . Hence, these appeals. 5. Shri M.K. Verma, Counsel for both the claimants contended that the findings recorded by the Tribunal are perverse and are not based on proper appreciation of material on record and even if certificate (Exhibit-18) in case of Rampratap is disbelieved, yet injury & x-ray reports (Exhibits-5 and 6) cannot be disbelieved especially when their genuineness has not been disputed by either side., and that apart, this fact cannot be ruled out that he remained in hospital for more than 11 days, as such the compensation awarded by the Tribunal requires reconsideration. 6. As regards claim of Peerulal, the Counsel urged that once medical certificate showing disability has been issued by competent authority - genuineness of which has not been disputed, expert opinion has to be accepted unless there are otherwise reasons forthcoming in evidence on record in rebuttal, therefore, once expert opinion states about 15% disability, which ordinarily has to be believed and the finding recorded by Tribunal requires interference by this Court, especially when the fact stands established on record that he has sustained injuries on the shoulder which resulted in restriction of his movements with physical pain through out life. 7. Per Contra, Counsel for respondents supported the findings recorded by the Tribunal and according to him, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable being based on the material on record, which requires no interference by this Court. 8. I have pondered over the contentions of the parties and with their assistance examined the record. It is true that any interpolation made in the certificate (Exhibit 18) has to be dealt with strictly and no indulgence to such kind of persons are to be extended, who indulged in making interpolations in documents. 8. I have pondered over the contentions of the parties and with their assistance examined the record. It is true that any interpolation made in the certificate (Exhibit 18) has to be dealt with strictly and no indulgence to such kind of persons are to be extended, who indulged in making interpolations in documents. Certainly it is serious matter and such kind of commissions has to be properly dealt with by authority concerned. But the fact remains that disability as a result of injuries sustained in the accident has caused to the claimants, as is evident from the fact that the doctor who was author of certificate (Exhibit-18) has disowned percentage figure and not the certificate being issued by him, which shows that the claimant has sustained some permanent disability. That apart, this fact cannot be ignored in view of injury & x-ray reports that injuries sustained by claimant are of grievous nature and he remained in hospital for medical treatment for about more than 11 days. In this view of matter, in my opinion, the claimant Rampratap is entitled for compensation atleast of Rs. 25,000/-in totality of facts situation of the case. 9. As regards claim of Peerulal, in view of disability certificate (Exhibit-2) which states 15% disability having caused to Peerulal, and that apart, he sustained injuries on shoulder which has restricted his movements and once an expert opined 15% permanent disability having caused to him, which ordinarily should not be disbelieved and to which due credence has to be given, and merely because of simple injuries described therein, that will in no manner suffice to infer that he had not sustained injury of a nature causing disability. In my considered opinion, finding recorded by Tribunal at his own perception is not legally sustainable while awarding compensation. In totality of facts situation of the case, Peerulal is also entitled to compensation of Rs. 25,000/-instead of Rs. 12,000 /-. 10. As is evident from the material on record, each of claimants has already been paid Rs. 25,000/-under no fault liability by the respondent Insurance Company, therefore, in view of enhanced compensation awarded by this Court, (Supra), there is no need to make recovery against each of them. 11. To the above extent, each of the appeals is consequently allowed and the impugned Award stands modified. No order as to costs.