RAFIQ, J.—The appeal is time barred by 120 days and appellant has filed an application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay. For stated reasons, application is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Matter is heard on merits. 2. Claimant has preferred this appeal being aggrieved by award dated 04.10.2007 of learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.8, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in MAC Case No.412/2007, whereby learned Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- to him for simple injury sustained by him in a road accident. 3. On 11.05.2006 appellant was going on a motorcycle no.RJ-14-40M-602 and when he reached Dehar Ka Balaji, a Jeep No.RJ-14-4C-1262, being driven rashly and negligently, hit him. In the accident, he sustained injuries and the motorcycle also got damaged. For the injuries sustained by him and damaged caused to motorcycle, learned Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.5000/-, which is towards lower side. 4. Contention of learned counsel for appellant is that learned Tribunal did not consider the material available on record while passing the impugned award. The appellant received fracture at temporal region and he got treatment in a private hospital and remained hospitalized for five days. Appellant also remained on leave for two months for treatment. Hence, it is prayed that appeal may be allowed and compensation may suitably be enhanced. 5. On hearing learned counsel for appellant and perusing material on record, I am of the view that learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.5000/- to appellant. Learned Tribunal though has held offending vehicle liable for accident as it was being driven rashly and negligently and on account of that appellant received injury, but from documents produced on record it is not clear as to how much permanent disability he suffered. He has not produced permanent disability certificate on record. He has also not produced any doctor in witness box to prove the documents to the effect that injuries received by him would have affected his eyes. As per Exhibit-15 appellant remained under treatment of a doctor of railway hospital from 12.05.2006 to 12.06.2006, whereas, as per discharge-ticket (Exhibit-8), he remained hospitalized in S.M.S. Hospital from 11.05.2006 to 16.05.2006. Learned Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding that it is not possible for a person to have remained under treatment of two doctors at a time and accordingly disbelieved documentary evidence in this respect. Learned Tribunal has rightly recorded a finding that it is not possible for a person to have remained under treatment of two doctors at a time and accordingly disbelieved documentary evidence in this respect. Appellant has neither produced X-ray report of the injury received by him, nor produced permanent disability certificate nor any doctor to prove the injury received by him. The appellant has received only a simple injury in the accident and for that injury, learned Tribunal has rightly awarded compensation of Rs.5000/-. I do not find any infirmity or illegality in the findings recorded by learned Tribunal. No interference is called for in impugned award. The appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.