JUDGMENT 1. - This misc. appeal has been filed by the appellant against the award dated 30.8.2001 passed by learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindauncity (for short `the learned Tribunal') in claim case No. 81/98 whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant claimant has been partly allowed. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 30.6.1997 he and other persons were travelling in Mini Bus N. RJ-25P-310 and suddenly the said bus was turned down due to rash and negligent driving of the bus driver and the appellant claimant sustained serious injuries along-with other persons. The report to the said incident was lodged at P.S. Hindauncity bearing No. 450/97. 3. Thereafter, the claimant filed claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Only the Insurance Company filed the reply. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. On the basis of the pleadings of parties, the learned Tribunal framed the issues. 4. The learned tribunal after considering the evidence produced by the parties, passed the impugned award. Hence, this misc. appeal before this Court. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant claimant submits that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award has not considered the statements of the witnesses. The appellant sustained grievous injuries including fracture in right leg and other and due to this accident, he sustained 20% permanent disability. Hence, the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be enhanced. 6. In support of his case he has placed reliance upon the following Judgments : 1. Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF and others, 1998 ACJ 859 , 2. Jagbandhu Banerjee v. Santosh Kumar and Ors., 2010(2) ACC 1 , 3. Babu Singh v. Mohd. Irfan & Ors., IV (2009) ACC 813 (DB) , 4. Amjad v. Angrej Singh & Ors., 1 (2006) ACC 716 (DB) . 7. On the other hand Mr. R.S. Bhati and Mr. Shashendra Lahiri v. UNICEF and others, 1998 ACJ 859 , 2. Jagbandhu Banerjee v. Santosh Kumar and Ors., 2010(2) ACC 1 , 3. Babu Singh v. Mohd. Irfan & Ors., IV (2009) ACC 813 (DB) , 4. Amjad v. Angrej Singh & Ors., 1 (2006) ACC 716 (DB) . 7. On the other hand Mr. R.S. Bhati and Mr. Karanpal Singh, learned i counsel appearing for the respondents Insurance Company and owner and driver of the vehicle have drawn attention of the Court at page 7 and 8 of the impugned award which is reproduced hereunder : " blds foijhr fo}ku vf/koDrk chek dEiuh 2000 ( 1 ) ,0ts0vkj0 ist 26] iatkc ,.M gfj;k.kk] gjcal flag cuke tksfxUnj flag] ftlesa 27-5 izfr'kr v'kDrrk ds vk/kkj ij ftlesa <+kbZ ls0eh0 iSj NksVk gksuk crk;k dqy 30000 :i;s {kfriwfrZ fnykbZ xbZ gSA ,d vU; uthj Vh0,0lh0 enzkl] 2000 ( 1 ) ek/kou cuke izcU/kd funs'kd] e:/k "kaM;kj V~kl dksj0 dqjSdqMh okys ekeys esa 25 izfr'kr v'kDrrk ds vk/kkj ij 25000 :i;s izfrdj jkf'k fnykbZ xbZ gSA mDr uthjksa dk lknj voyksdu fd;k] i=koyh ij miyC/k lk{; ,oa mDr uthjksa esa izfrikfnr fof/k dh jks'kuh esa bl ;kfpdk ckcr fuEu {kfriwfrZ jkf'k fu/kkZfjr dh tkrh gSA izLrqr izdj.k esa izkFkhZ dsnkj }kjk izLrqr izn'kZ&17 LFkkbZ v'kDrrk izek.k i= ls ;g Li"V ugha gS fd mldh Vkax esa dksbZ nks& <+kbZ bap dh NksVh gksuk ik;k x;k gks] v'kDrrk 20 izfr'kr crkbZ gS] ,slh fLFkfr esa v'kDrrk ckcr 30000 :i;s o blds iSj ds vkWijs'ku] nokbZ;ksa ds [kpZ t;iqj vkus tkus dk [kpZ ckcr dqy 25000 :i;s bl izdkj izkFkhZ dsnkj vius pksVksa ds izfrdj Lo:i dqy 55000@& :i;s izkIr djus dk vf/kdkj gSA vr% ;g fook|d blh izdkj izkFkhZdj.k ds i{k esa vkSj foi{khx.k ds fo:) fu.khZr fd;k tkrk gSA fook|d la[;k&3 bl fook|d dk izek.k Hkkj chek dEiuh ij gSA bl ckcr chek dEiuh dh ;g vkifRr gS fd oDr ?kVuk okgu dks okgu dk d.MsDVj pyk jgk Fkk] foi{kh la0 1 ugha] vkSj mlds ikl dksbZ oS/k ,oa izHkkoh ykbZlsUl ugha FkkA bl lEcU/k esa rudh la[;k 1 ds foospu esa ;g fu/kkZfjr fd;k tk pqdk gS fd ;g nq?kZVuk foi{kh la0 1 }kjk okgu vkjts 25@ih 310 dks xQyr ,oa ykijokgh ls pykus ls gqbZ] foi{kh la0 1 ds M~kbZfoax ykbZlsUl dh izfr is'k dh gSA vr% ;g rudh fo:) chek dEiuh o cgd izkFkhZx.k fu.khZr dh tkrh gSA fook|d la[;k&4 ;g fook|d vuqrks"k ckcr gS] mDr fook|dksa ds fu.kZ;kuqlkj izkFkhZx.k ckcw flag o deys'k vius iq= nsoh flag dh e`R;q ckcr foi{khx.k ls 1]25]000@& :i;s] dsnkj o dykorh vius iq= lhrkjke dh e`R;q ckcr 1]60]000@& o izkFkhZ dsnkj vius HkkbZ {kfr;ksa ckcr dqy 55]000@& gtkj :i;s foi{khx.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkj gSA bl jkf'k esa ls mudks vUrfje {kfriwfrZ dh tks jkf'k;kWa vnk dh xbZ gSa] os lek;ksftr gksxh] 'ks"k jkf'k ij rk;kse nk;jh ;kfpdk ls rkclwyh 9 izfr'kr okf"kZd C;kt izkIr dj ldsaxsA " 8. Thus, the misc. appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed and the impugned award passed by the learned Tribunal be maintained. 9. From a bare perusal of the facts of the case and the material made available to me as also going through the record of the case, in my considered view, the learned tribunal has considered on each and every aspect of the matter. 10. In the result, this misc. appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed and the award dated 30.8.2001 passed by learned Judge. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hindauncity in claim case No. 81/98 is confirmed.Appeal Dismissed. *******