Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This appeal has been filed by the claimant against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur dt. 6.12.1995, passed in Claim Case No. 44/1992, for enhancement of compensation awarded, on account of personal injury. 2. The learned Tribunal has awarded total compensation of Rs. 60,000/- along with interest. By the impugned judgment the learned Tribunal decided three claim petitions, out of them Claim Petition No. 43 and 114 were death cases, while Claim No. 44 was for personal injury sustained by the appellant. Since the question of factum of happening accident, negligence, and sustaining injuries by the appellant, are not in dispute, and the only question raised before me is about the quantum of compensation, I need not dilate on other aspects of the matter. 3. According to the claim petition consequent upon accident the claimant did not remain capable of doing any work, as his hands and legs became useless, he would be able to keep standing only with the support of steel road, his income has been reduced by 100%. Thus, it is a case of total disablement. 4. This pleading has been contested by pleading, that imaginary and exaggerated claim has been lodged. The allegation about hands and legs become invalid was denied, and it was pleaded, that the claimant is pursuing his normal pursuit, and has not suffered any disablement. Then, other heads of the claim were also denied. 5. In evidence the claimant examined himself only, and in his statement he has deposed, that on 8.1.1992 the accident occurred. He was going on motor cycle, which was driven by deceased Prem Singh, and Manak Chand was also on the motor cycle, who also died. The claimant sustained fracture of his leg, and received some more injuries. He received treatment in a Government Hospital for about two years, which is still continuing. His knee does not bend, and has deposed, that bills of his treatment are from Ex.10 to Ex. 128. X-Ray report and medical examination reports have been produced as Ex. 129 and 130. This is the entire statement of the claimant. 6. It would simply suffice for me to say, that he has not deposed about his hands and legs having become disabled, or his having suffered 100% permanent disablement in the income. Learned Tribunal has found, that from Ex. 129 and 130. This is the entire statement of the claimant. 6. It would simply suffice for me to say, that he has not deposed about his hands and legs having become disabled, or his having suffered 100% permanent disablement in the income. Learned Tribunal has found, that from Ex. 12 the discharge certificate of the hospital, it is clear that the claimant was admitted on 10.1.1992, and was dischar-ged on 15.1.1992. This clearly shows, that the version given out about claimant having remained hospitalised for about 2 years, as pleaded in claim petition, is on the face of it false. Then, the claimant has not produced any material to show, and corroborate his version, about his being required to take treatment for two years, and about treatment being continued. Likewise, so far as disability in bending knee is concerned, in that regard neither any medical certificate has been produced, nor any doctor has been examined, and on the face of it, it does not stand to reason, that on account of fracture of mid shaft of the femur, of necessity, the movement of knee would get affected. Thus it is clear, that the claimant is exaggerating the claim out of all proportion. 7. Similarly the appellant has not even deposed as to how much was he earning before accident, and what was extent of loss of income, even during the period of treatment, much less for subsequent period. Admittedly, the learned Tribunal has awarded the entire amount of medical expenditure, as incurred by the claimant, and it is not shown, that any amount has been omitted from being awarded. 8. In these circumstances, I do not find any error on the part of the learned Tribunal in assessing the amount of compensation as awarded. 9. The appeal thus has no force, and is dismissed.