JUDGMENT 1. - These two appeals have been filed by the claimants against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Udaipur dated 31.1.1997 deciding three claim petitions, being claim No.133/90 " Bhagwan Lal v. Ranjeet Singh .", claim No.134/90 " Prakash v. Ranjeet Singh ." and claim No.135/90 " Kachru Lal v. Ranjeet Singh ". It appears that no appeal has been filed against the award passed in claim No.135/90 " Kachru Lal v. Ranjeet Singh .", and these two appeals have been filed against the award passed in Claim No.133 and 134. 2. Learned Tribunal has awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.25,000/- in claim No.134/90, and awarded a lump sum amount of Rs.55,000/- in claim No.133/90. 3. A look at the findings of the learned Tribunal shows that in claim No.133, a sum of Rs.2,19,000/- was claimed under different heads in which medical expenses were claimed at Rs.20,000/-, loss of income was claimed at Rs.24,000/-, mental pain and agony was quantified at Rs.20,000/-, and a compensation for permanent loss of income was claimed at Rs.1,45,000/-. The injuries as appeared in Ex.5, the X-Ray report are that the injured Bhagwan Lal sustained fracture of tibia and fibula in left leg, and has suffered 3% permanent disablement as appears from disablement certificate Ex.107. The learned Tribunal has only observed that the bills for medical expenses as have been produced totaled to Rs.5908/-. With this, considering the fact, that in cases of fractures, the minimum compensation awardable is Rs.25,000/-, and therefore, a total amount of Rs.55,000/- has been awarded. 4. Similarly, coming to claim No.134, a total compensation of Rs.1,39,000/- has been claimed under different heads. The claimant Prakash sustained fracture of upper ⅓rd of the left femur, apart from other simple injuries. The learned Tribunal found that the medical bills produced totalled to Rs.633/-, and found from the statement of the claimant that he has not suffered any future loss of income. With this, a lump sum compensation of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded. 5. In my view, the order of the learned Tribunal cannot be appreciated, inasmuch as, where specific evidence was led regarding nature of injuries, treatment, disablement, etc., compensation was required to be assessed under different head as may be admissible to the claimant, to the extent, as may be established by the evidence on record. 5. In my view, the order of the learned Tribunal cannot be appreciated, inasmuch as, where specific evidence was led regarding nature of injuries, treatment, disablement, etc., compensation was required to be assessed under different head as may be admissible to the claimant, to the extent, as may be established by the evidence on record. The award of claim is not to be made as an exgratia payment, as appears to have been done by learned Tribunal, by making a lump sum award. 6. In the totality of circumstances, I do not stand advised to undertake the exercise of threshing out the entire evidence over again myself in this appeal, and arrive at a different figure of compensation payable under different heads, and stand better advised to remand the matters to the learned Tribunal to decide the claim petitions afresh on the aspect of quantum, keeping in view the observations already made above, and on the basis of the material already available on record. 7. Accordingly, the appeals are allowed. The impugned awards are set aside, and the matters are remanded back to the learned Tribunal to decide the claim petitions afresh on the aspect of quantum, keeping in view the observations already made above, and on the basis of the material already available on record. Records of the learned Tribunal be returned forthwith. The parties to appear before the learned Tribunal on 8.12.2008. The learned Tribunal is directed to decide the matters most expeditiously, as the accident is already more than 20 years' old and since no fresh evidence is to be recorded.Appeals Allowed. *******