Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—These two appeals have been preferred filed by the claimant and another by the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation against the award dated 27.8.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gangapur City, District Sawai Madhopur thereby awarding compensation to the tune of Rs.1,75,000/- to the claimant. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the claimant-appellant is that amount of compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- is not sufficient. Injured sustained 24% disability and therefore much more amount should have been awarded. Besides that, it is argued that learned Tribunal in the judgment has not clarified that Rs.25,000/- is in addition to Rs.1,50,000/-, which is evident from the finding on Issue No.2. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the RSRTC has opposed the appeal of the claimant and has argued in his appeal that amount of compensation is excessive. The injury of 24% has not been proved by evidence of any medical officer. Involvement of the vehicle is also disputed. In this connection, learned counsel has referred to the statement of driver Virendra Duttak and argued that the accident had taken place at a different place than from where the vehicle was intercepted by one ASI Manohar Pal. Learned counsel has cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar & Anr. : MACD 2011 (SC) 33 the Supreme Court for the disability of 20%, awarded Rs.64,800/- as compensation. Learned counsel has also cited another judgment of Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar @ Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh & Anr. : IV (2008) ACC 354 (SC) to argue that in absence of medical officer, the disability certificate by itself may not be sufficient to prove the disability. 4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the award, I find that in the present case, the disability certificate has been given by the medical board proving 24% disability thereby shortening of leg by 3/4 inch. In the case of Rajesh Kumar @ Raju supra, the issue was that the medical certificate assessing disability at 60% was obtained after two years of the accident and it was not clear as to whether the doctor issuing certificate has treated the claimant or not and whether he was competent to issue certificate. Such is not the question in the present case. 5. In my view, quantum of compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- for the disability of 24% is just and reasonable. Such is not the question in the present case. 5. In my view, quantum of compensation of Rs.1,75,000/- for the disability of 24% is just and reasonable. It is clarified Rs.25,000/-, which was awarded to the claimant by the Tribunal under 'no fault liability' is in addition to Rs.1,50,000/- as is evident from the finding recorded by the Tribunal on Issue No.2. 6. Both the appeals fail and are hereby dismissed. Record be transmitted back to the Tribunal forthwith.