ORDER : - Appellant by Mr. Lokesh Mehta, advocate. Respondent No. 1 by Mr. C. P. Singh, advocate With the consent of the parties matter heard finally. This order shall also govern the disposal of M. A. No. 1823/06, which has been filed by respondent No. 1, against the award dated 28-2-2006, passed by 1st Additional MACT, Khargone, in Claim Case No. 51/2005. 2. In M. A. No. 1689/06, the prayer is that in a injury case the amount of Rs. 1,95,540/- is awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side. While, in M. A. No. 1823/06, which is an appeal filed by respondent No. 1 the prayer is that the amount awarded is excessive. 3. It is not necessary to narrate the entire facts in detail, such as how the accident occurred, who was negligent in driving the offending vehicle, who is liable for paying compensation etc. In this view of the matter, there is no justification to burden the judgment by detailing facts on all these issues. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant was aged 30 years and was second driver by profession, at the time of accident, which took place on 8-4-2005. Appellant sustained fracture of humerus bone of right hand. Appellant was hospitalized at Government Hospital from 8-4-2005 to 9-4-2005. Thereafter appellant was referred to M. Y. Hospital, Indore, where he was hospitalized from 9-4-2005 to 12-4-2005. Appellant was operated; rod was inserted. There was vesting of hand by 2 cms. for which permanent disability was to the extent of 10% for which Dr. Rajendra Joshi was examined. It is further submitted that learned Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 1,95,540/-, breakup of which is as under : Rs. 1,29,600/- Towards permanent disability Rs. 48,000/- Towards loss of income. Rs. 17,940/- Towards medical expenses. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is on lower side, as on account of pain and sufferings, special diet, transportation expenses, no amount has been awarded. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (Insurance Company) submits that the income of the appellant has been assessed on higher side. Permanent disability has been proved by doctor Rajendra Joshi, who was not the treating doctor and was also not Master in Orthopedics. It is submitted that appellant himself has stated that income of the appellant was Rs. 6. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 (Insurance Company) submits that the income of the appellant has been assessed on higher side. Permanent disability has been proved by doctor Rajendra Joshi, who was not the treating doctor and was also not Master in Orthopedics. It is submitted that appellant himself has stated that income of the appellant was Rs. 3,000/- per month and Travelling allowance was Rs. 100/- per day, but learned Tribunal assessed the income of the appellant as Rs. 6,000/- per month, which is on higher side. 7. Mr. Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel for the appellant submits that so far as the amount of award is concerned respondent No. 1 has no locus to challenge, as no permission was sought by respondent No. 1 under section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act. 8. I have gone through the evidence adduced by the claimants. From perusal of the record it is evident that vide order dated 14-10-2005, permission under section 170 of the Act was given to the respondent No. 1, therefore, this Court has to examine whether amount awarded is just and proper or not and in the appeal filed by respondent No. 1 it can also be reduced, if this Court is of the view that the amount awarded is on higher side. So far as permanent disability is concerned only on the basis of statement of Doctor Rajendra Joshi it cannot be said that appellant sustained permanent disability to the extent of 10%, as he was not a treating doctor. Income of the appellant is also assessed on higher side, which ought to have been assessed @ Rs. 3,000/- per month only. However, it is true that on some of the heads appellant has not been awarded any amount. In the facts and circumstances of the case appellant is entitled for the following amount: Rs. 60,000/- Towards permanent disability, Rs. 5,000/- Towards pain and sufferings. Rs. 5,000/- Towards special diet. Rs. 5,000/- Towards transportation expenses. Rs. 5,000/- Towards exp. incurred on attenders. Rs. 25,000/- Towards loss of income Rs. 10,000/- Towards further treatment. Rs. 20,000/- Towards medical expenses. Rs. 1,35,000/- Total 9. Thus, the appellant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,35,000/-instead of Rs. 1,95,540/-by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant. That means reduction of Rs. 60,540/-. 10. With the aforesaid modifications the appeal stands disposed of. 10,000/- Towards further treatment. Rs. 20,000/- Towards medical expenses. Rs. 1,35,000/- Total 9. Thus, the appellant is held entitled for a total sum of Rs. 1,35,000/-instead of Rs. 1,95,540/-by way of compensation for the injuries sustained by the appellant. That means reduction of Rs. 60,540/-. 10. With the aforesaid modifications the appeal stands disposed of. No order as to costs. CC within three days. Order accordingly.