JUDGMENT 1. - The instant appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is directed against the judgment and award dated 9.4.1997 rendered in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 36 of 1992 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Balotra (for short, Tribunal'), by which the claim petition, filed by appellant Dharam Chand and his daughter Premratan respondent No. 6 herein, to recover compensation of Rs. 43,83,400 on account of injuries sustained in a road accident, came to be partly allowed and thereby appellant Sanghvi Dharam Chand has been awarded total compensation of Rs. 23,500.10 together with interest @ 12% from the date of filing petition till realisation whereas minor daughter of appellant respondent No. 6 Premratan has been awarded total compensation of Rs. 21,100.40 together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the petition till realisation and accordingly respondent RSRTC and others have been directed to pay the said amount of compensation. 2. As per the averments made in the claim petition, appellant Dharam Chand and his minor daughter Premratan were travelling in Bus No. RNP 1285 of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jodhpur Depot from Balotra to jodhpur on 18.12.1991 and at about 6.40 P.M. when the bus was five kilometer away from Pachpadra, near Balaji Temple, it dashed with a military tanker on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver of the bus who was driving the bus in an excessive speed and he could not control it, as a result of this accident, appellant Sanghvi Dharamchand and his daughter Premratan received several injuries. Both of them filed a joint petition as Premlata at the time of filing claim petition was minor. 3. In the claim petition, appellant Dharamchand under various heads for himself claimed compensation amounting to Rs. 37,69,900 and for his minor daughter Premratan alias Purnima claimed a sum of Rs. 6,13,500, total amounting Rs. 43,83,400. 4. The claim petition was contested by Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation by filing written statement wherein negligence on the part of the driver was denied and it was stated that on account of army tanker being driven rashly and negligently in a fast speed the incident took place. 6,13,500, total amounting Rs. 43,83,400. 4. The claim petition was contested by Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation by filing written statement wherein negligence on the part of the driver was denied and it was stated that on account of army tanker being driven rashly and negligently in a fast speed the incident took place. it was also denied that the appellant or his minor daughter sustained any permanent disability as no certificate of injury was submitted by the claimants and while denying the claim of the claimants it was prayed to dismiss the claim petition. 5. The Tribunal on assessment of the evidence has awarded the compensation as stated in earlier paragraph of this judgment which has given rise to this appeal at the instance of appellant, which has been filed by claimant Dharamchand only. So far as other injured claimant Premratan alias Purnima is concerned, she has been impleaded as respondent No. 6 in this appeal and she has not filed any separate appeal. 6. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocates of both the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award as well as record of the case. 7. There is no dispute with regard to the accident having taken place taking and the claimants having suffered simple injuries. So far as negligence attributed to the driver of the RSRTC is concerned, there is also no dispute as the appeal filed by RSRTC being S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 492/1997 has been dismissed by this Court, therefore, the only question which is required to be examined in this appeal is whether the compensation awarded to appellant Sanghvi Dharamchand is just and reasonable or it requires upward rise. 8. On perusal of entire record, it is seen that appellant Sanghvi Dharamchand has received three simple injuries as per Ex.17 and there is no proof of his permanent disability. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 10,000 to the appellant for pain, shock and sufferings and has awarded Rs. 10,000 for one month's non-supervision of the Garden so also Rs. 2,500 for non attending the shop and coffee gardens total compensation amounting to Rs. 23,500.10. 9. In view of the above, according to this Court when the appellant has received only simple injuries without any disablement, awarding of Rs. 10,000 under the head pain, shock and sufferings is justified and reasonable. Awarding of Rs. 2,500 for non attending the shop and coffee gardens total compensation amounting to Rs. 23,500.10. 9. In view of the above, according to this Court when the appellant has received only simple injuries without any disablement, awarding of Rs. 10,000 under the head pain, shock and sufferings is justified and reasonable. Awarding of Rs. 10,000 for non-supervision of garden is also justified and similarly awarding Rs. 2,500 for non-attending the shop and coffee garden is also just and reasonable and according to this Court the compensation awarded to the appellant does not require any upward rise. In sum and substance the total compensation of Rs. 23,500.10 awarded to the appellant together with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till its realisation is justified as it is just and reasonable and no upward rise is required. 10. Seen in the above context, instant appeal lacks merit, deserves to be dismissed. 11. For the forgoing reasons, appeal fails and it is dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******