JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal has been filed against the judgment and award dated 5th March, 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur and Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots), Jaipur in MAC No. 655/2008, by which a sum of Rs. 9,48,000/- has been awarded to the claimant appellant under different heads. 2. Brief facts of the case are that on 14-1-2005, the appellant (claimant) was going by Jeep No. RJ-23-C-2339 from Dudu towards Narena. When the Jeep reached near Maleda Puliya, a tractor No. RJ-21-3R-9225 being driven rashly, negligently and with excessive speed by its driver came from opposite direction and hit the jeep. Due to this accident, the appellant sustained serious injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that at the time of accident, the claimant was 42 years of age and was posted as Cashier in Sakhun Branch of Jaipur Nagaur Anchlik Gramin Bank. At that time, his monthly salary was Rs. 17,906/-. There was a crush injury of his right leg. He was taken to the SMS Hospital, Jaipur, where his right leg was operated and was amputated above the knee. Thereafter he was discharged from SMS Hospital, Jaipur. Then he was treated at Tongya Hospital and Santokba Durlabhji Memorial Hospital. He was also treated by the Doctors of Trauma Hospital, Dudu. During the continuation of treatment, he remained confined to bed and remained on leave for 126 days. Due to this reason, not only he suffered economic loss, but also suffered mental and physical agony also. During the prolonged treatment, about a sum of Rs. 7,00,000/- were spent under different heads like medicines, doctors fees, hospitalization, nourishing diet, attendants and transportation. This amount includes a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for artificial limb through Health Care India Otto-Bock. Thereafter he felt some problems in fitting of this artificial limb and he had to spend about Rs. 60,000/--on its repairing. He had to visit Delhi for fixing and repairing of artificial limb on many occasions and the claimant appellant had to incur quite a big amount on transportation and other heads for himself and for his attendant also. The concerned Doctors suggested the cost of artificial limb to be Rs. 13,06,000/-, although the cost of this limb has increased now. In future if he keeps the aforesaid limb, which has been fixed by the Doctors, then he has to spend Rs. The concerned Doctors suggested the cost of artificial limb to be Rs. 13,06,000/-, although the cost of this limb has increased now. In future if he keeps the aforesaid limb, which has been fixed by the Doctors, then he has to spend Rs. 50,000/- or 60,000/- per year if he does not replace the aforesaid limb with another artificial limb. 4. He further submits that the claim petition was filed. Reply was filed. Issues were framed, evidence was submitted by both the sides and on 29-10-2009, the learned Tribunal passed the award of Rs. 30,41,600/-. Thereafter United India Insurance Company filed the appeal against the said judgment and award dated 29-10-2009. In the aforesaid appeal, 50% amount under the award was directed to be given to the claimant appellant by way of interim order. Thereafter the appeal was remanded to the Tribunal on 4-7-2011 to decide the matter as a fresh on issue No. 4 on the basis of judgment rendered in the case of Barun Kumar Das v. New India Insurance Company and others, reported in (II) 2005 ACC page 132 (DB) and New India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Amitwa Das and others, reported in 2007 ACJ Page 2058 : (AIR 2007 SC 1424) . Thereafter on 5th March, 2012, the learned Tribunal has passed the award reducing the award amount from Rs. 30,41,600/- to Rs. 9,48,000/-. Against the said award dated 5th March, 2012, the appellant has referred this appeal. 5. In this appeal, learned counsel Mr. Sandeep Mathur has contended that the learned Tribunal while passing the impugned award dated 5th March, 2012 has not considered the aforesaid facts, as mentioned hereinabove and the evidence produced by the appellant, has not been appreciated by the Tribunal in the judgment and award dated 5th March, 2012. The learned Tribunal while deciding issue No. 4 as a fresh has not considered the judgments delivered by Hon'ble Apex Court. The Tribunal has also not considered this fact that his right leg had been crushed in the accident and the same has been replaced by artificial limb, amounting to Rs. 13,06,000/- and the rate of the aforesaid limb has increased right now. This is the actual expense to purchase the artificial limb. Other expenses were also incurred by the appellant in addition to that. 6. Mr. 13,06,000/- and the rate of the aforesaid limb has increased right now. This is the actual expense to purchase the artificial limb. Other expenses were also incurred by the appellant in addition to that. 6. Mr. Sandeep Mathur, learned counsel lastly requested to this Court that by the interim order passed by this Court prior to remanding the matter, the appellant has received Rs. 15,20,800/- with interest. If the Court is polite and in the circumstances where his right leg has completely been crushed and rate of artificial limb is more than Rs. 13,06,000/- and the appellant has spent money in other heads, then the amount, which has been received by the claimant- appellant should not be recovered or the award amount be enhanced upto the amount, which has been received by the appellant under the interim order passed by the Court before remanding the matter. 7. Learned counsel Mr. Virendra Agarwal has vehemently opposed the argument of Mr. Sandeep Mathur and contended that although there is no appeal of the Insurance Company, but the amount which has been received by the appellant in pursuance of the interim order passed before remanding the matter, the same should be recovered from the appellant and given to the Insurance Company. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, especially the fact that right leg of the appellant has been crushed and the amount of artificial limb is more than Rs. 13,06,000/- and the appellant had to spent money on number of heads from the date of accident, I do not think it proper to direct to make recovery of the amount which has been received by the appellant in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court, but the award amount of Rs. 9,48,000/- as awarded by the learned Tribunal in its award dated 5th March, 2012 is enhanced to Rs. 15,20,800/-, as received by the appellant under the interim order. 9. In the result the appeal is partly allowed and the impugned judgment and award dated 5-3-2012 stands modified, as indicated hereinabove 10. Consequent upon the disposal of appeal, the stay application, filed herewith, does not survive and the same stands disposed of accordingly.Appeal partly allowed. *******