Hon'ble SHARMA, J.—This civil misc. appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 is preferred against the judgment and award dated 15.11.2010 passed by the learned Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur & Special Court, Communal Riots, in claim case No. 363/08 (599/05) "Ram Gopal vs. Pawan Kumar & Another" whereby a total claim of Rs. 10,320/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant and against the Insurance Company along with interest of 6% per annum from the date of claim till payment is made 2. The facts in brief are that on 25.9.2003 at about 10.30, when the appellant was going on foot from Dil Chandni Chowk towards Pankha by the side of the road, at that time from the back side one motor cycle No. RJ-14-36-M-1823 being driven rash and negligently hit the appellant. Due to which, the appellant fell down and sustained injuries. An FIR to this effect was lodged at Police Station, Jhotwara which is as Ex. 1. 3. Thereafter, a claim petition was filed by the appellant claimant before the learned Tribunal. Notices were issued. After service, reply was filed on behalf of the insurance company. After scrutinizing the evidence submitted by both the sides, the learned Tribunal has passed the aforesaid award, against which, this civil misc. appeal has been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the appellant sustained various injuries on different parts of the body and the calculation of salary was not correctly made. The appellant was admitted in hospital and remained on leave for a total period of 54 days and faced problem in performing daily routine work. Thus, the learned Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence submitted by the appellant in accordance with law. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel Ms. Rajni Vyas, who accepts notice on behalf of insurance company has contended that the learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the evidence submitted by the parties. 6. She has further contended that the F.I.R. in the present case was lodged with delay and there is no justified explanation given by the appellant as to why he has lodged the F.I.R. with delay. 7. 6. She has further contended that the F.I.R. in the present case was lodged with delay and there is no justified explanation given by the appellant as to why he has lodged the F.I.R. with delay. 7. She has further contended that the appellant has obtained the amount of his medical bill from the insurance company where he was working and lastly she has prayed that the appellant has no justified reason for enhancement of the award amount. 8. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record. 9. According to Ex. 4 the appellant received only one grievous injury and the learned Tribunal according to the Second Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act awarded Rs. 5,000/- for this grievous injury. The Tribunal awarded Rs. 5,000/- in the head of mental agony and pain. The appellant has withdrawn the treatment expenditure from the Department. Only a bill of Rs. 120/- (Ex. 18) has been submitted which has been given. So far as payment of medical leave is concerned, there is no provision for taking cash payment against the medical leave. The appellant visited the hospital once and for that Rs. 200/- was given towards transportation. 10. Thus, the learned Tribunal has passed the just and sufficient award which does not call for any interference by this Court. 11. Accordingly, the civil misc. appeal is dismissed. The award dated 23.12.2010 is hereby confirmed.