Hon'ble RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the appellant on the premise that the accident has been proved to have been caused by the vehicle insured with the respondent insurance company and this fact is very much proved from the discharge certificate, which respondents themselves produced in support of their case but the learned Tribunal erred in law while not only dismissing the claim petition but also ordered for recovery of Rs.25,000/- already paid to the appellant under no fault liability. 2. Perusal of the x-ray report Exh.10 dated 9.4.2009 indicates that there is evidence of fracture of lower and half femur but then there is report of the radiographer that there is evidence of previous surgical intervention, that means that previously, appellant was subjected to surgery. Learned counsel argued that he earlier sustained that injury but then he sustained fresh injury on the same day. Impugned award indicates that the Tribunal found that no evidence was found according to the x-report that claimant sustained fresh injury rather it shows that there is evidence of "previous surgical intervention", which pertained to old injury. However the learned Tribunal while dismissing the claim petition directed for recovery of Rs.25,000/- already paid to the appellant under no fault liability, which in my view, cannot be recovered in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Indra Devi and others vs. Bagada Ram and another : 2010 ACJ 2451 . 3. In the result, the appeal is disposed with the direction that award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kishangarh, Ajmer dated 22.7.2011 on other aspect is maintained however, it is modified in terms that the amount of Rs.25,000/- already paid to the appellant under no fault liability may not be recovered. This observation however would not effect the merit of other appeal that may be filed by co-claimant Sukhram.