ORDER U.C. Maheshwari, J. 1. On behalf of the Appellant/ non-Applicant No. 2-the registered owner of the offending vehicle this appeal is preferred under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for setting aside the award dated 26-11-1998 passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bhopal in M. C. C. No. 37/98 whereby claim of the Respondent No. 1 regarding injuries sustained by him in the alleged vehicular accident has been awarded for the sum of Rs. 83,118/- along with the interest ' 12% p. a. by saddling jointly and several liability to indemnify such sum against the Appellant and Respondent No. 2, the driver of the offending vehicle. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in short are that on 20-8-1996 at about 11.00 O'clock in the morning the Respondent No. l/ claimant was going to his office on his Scooter bearing registration No. MP-04-N-1774, on the way the Respondent No. 2 while driving the Jeep bearing registration No. CPZ-4557 under the employment of the Appellant in rash and negligent manner dashed his Scooter, resultantly he fell down and sustained various injuries on his person. He was taken to local hospital from where after providing the preliminary treatment he was shifted to Koh-A-Fija hospital where he remained admitted initially for the period between 20-8-1996 to 3-9-1996 and subsequently between 10-9-1996 to 15-9-1996 as indoor patient. As per further averments due to such injuries he sustained near about 78% permanent disability in his hand and leg. As per further averments on the date of the incident the offending vehicle was registered in the name of the Appellant while the same was driven under the employment of the Appellant by Respondent No. 2. With respect of such incident a criminal offence was also registered against the Respondent No. 2 at the concerning police station. With these averments stating the income of the Appellant Rs. 3,865/- p. m. The claim for the compensation of the aforesaid injuries and permanent disability was preferred for the sum of Rs. 3,30,000/-. 3. The Respondent No. 2 was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal while in reply of the Appellant by denying the averments of the claim petition it is stated that on the date of the incident the Respondent No. 2 was not posted as driver under the employment of the Appellant on the alleged Jeep. 3,30,000/-. 3. The Respondent No. 2 was proceeded ex parte before the Tribunal while in reply of the Appellant by denying the averments of the claim petition it is stated that on the date of the incident the Respondent No. 2 was not posted as driver under the employment of the Appellant on the alleged Jeep. The criminal case was registered against the Respondent No. 2 on the false pretext. In fact the accident was not the cause and consequence of the rash and negligent driving of aforesaid jeep by the Respondent No. 2. In further averments it is stated that the aforesaid jeep was already transferred prior to the date of the incident in accordance with the prescribed procedure to the Gramin Yantriki Seva Vibhag where the Respondent No. 2 was not working as driver. In such premises the liability of the impugned claim could not be saddled against the Appellant and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition. 4. After framing the issues and recording the evidence, on appreciation of the same, it is held that the alleged accident was the cause and consequence of the rash and negligent driving of aforesaid jeep by Respondent No. 2 and taking into consideration the injuries sustained by the Respondent No. 1 whereby he sustained the permanent disability in his hand and leg his claim was awarded for the sum as mentioned above by saddling the joint and several liability to indemnify the same against Respondent No. 2 and the Appellant. Being dissatisfied with such award the Appellant/registered owner of the offending vehicle has come to this Court with this appeal for setting aside the same or in alternative for reducing the sum awarded by the Tribunal. 5. Having heard the State counsel at length on the question of admission I have carefully gone through the impugned award as well as the averments of the appeal memo. As per findings of the Tribunal due to injuries sustained by the Respondent No. 1 in the alleged accident he sustained the permanent disabilities in his hand and leg in spite taking the long treatment his one leg is remained shortened till some extent. The movement of the leg and hand have also been restricted till some extent for whole of the life. 6. The movement of the leg and hand have also been restricted till some extent for whole of the life. 6. Mere perusing the impugned award such findings appears to be in consonance with the proper appreciation of the evidence including the deposition of concerning Doctor Sayed Naeem Jahir (A. W. 1). It is apparent on record that taking into consideration the papers of the medical treatment and duration of the hospitalization of Respondent No. 1 he has been awarded the sum of Rs. 38,118/-on the head of treatment and medical expenses. Besides this taking into consideration the nature of injuries, shortening the leg and permanent disability he has been awarded Rs. 45,000/-, accordingly in all Rs. 83,118/- has been awarded. It is apparent on the record that on the head of the travelling expenses, attendant expenses, special diet and of the loss of sick leave no sum has been awarded by the Tribunal to the Respondent No. 1. Keeping in view such head on which no sum has been awarded to the Respondent No. 1, if the present case is examined then the impugned award appears to be passed on lower side in awarding the sum. 7. It is needless to state here that although the Appellant did not suffer any pecuniary loss because he was getting his salary from his department but one may imagine that a person who was going to his office on his legs along with his colleague before sustaining the injuries and shortening the leg and subsequent to such incident if he is going with his colleague to the office on every day by facing the lot of problems in walking because of shortening the leg then what humiliation and inferiority he is facing in between his among colleague and officials. Keeping in view such circumstance on examining the case at hand the sum of Rs. 45,000/- awarded by the Tribunal to the Respondent No. 1 as compensation for his injuries could not be said to be higher side in any manner. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any merits in this appeal even for admission, hence the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing and also without calling the record of the Tribunal. 9. 8. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have not found any merits in this appeal even for admission, hence the same is hereby dismissed at the stage of motion hearing and also without calling the record of the Tribunal. 9. Before parting the case, I would like to mention here that after going through the appeal memo in the available circumstances I am of the view that before filing the instant appeal concerning OIC/ official who granted the sanction/approval to file the appeal has not applied his mind with full cautious to consider the question for filing the appeal. It is expected from the higher officials of the Appellant before granting the sanction either to file the appeal or refusing the same, they will go through the record and then take such decision, unfortunately in the present appeal, it appears that such process has not been followed by the authority. 10. Let concerning official be intimated in this regard to take care in future, so filing the unnecessary litigation before this Court could be avoided. 11. In the available facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to the costs. 12. The appeal is dismissed at the stage of motion hearing, as indicated above.