Hon'ble GUPTA, J.—This misc. appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for enhancement of amount of compensation against the judgment and award dated 26.4.2000 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Dausa in Claim Petition No. 314/96 by which a sum of Rs. 90,000/- has been awarded in favour of the claimant/appellant. 2. The facts in short are that on 3.7.1996 the appellant/claimant with others were coming from Agra to Jaipur in Bus No. U.R.T. 1127. The respondent No. 1, driver of the Bus, was driving the Bus rashly and negligently. Because of his negligent driving when the Bus reached near Sanwas Pulia, it went on wrong side and hit the Tractor standing on the side of the road. Because of this collusion, the claimant/appellant received serious injuries. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that only Rs. 90,000/- has been awarded as compensation. For permanent disability, only Rs. 50,000/- has been awarded and for pain and agony, Rs. 25,000/- has been awarded whereas, the appellant was working in the Railway Department. His monthly salary was about Rs. 5089/-. He sustained serious injuries all over his body including fracture on his right leg. He remained hospitalized and was operated. Hence, the amount of compensation should have been enhanced suitably. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant record especially the impugned judgment and award. 5. It has been stated that Rs. 15,000/- has been deducted from his salary but, no such document in support of this contention has been placed on record. Hence, the learned Tribunal has rightly not assessed any compensation in the head of loss of income. Similarly, it has been stated that the appellant has to remain on leave for a period of six months and no salary has been paid to him during this period. But, no such documentary evidence has been produced before the learned Tribunal in support of this contention. Hence, no compensation for loss of salary was awarded. 6. It has been stated that when the present appellant remained in hospital, he has to contribute Rs. 38/- per day for his dietary needs and about Rs. 15,000/- has been deducted from his salary and the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on this count. But, no documentary evidence has been produced that Rs. 6. It has been stated that when the present appellant remained in hospital, he has to contribute Rs. 38/- per day for his dietary needs and about Rs. 15,000/- has been deducted from his salary and the learned Tribunal has not awarded any compensation on this count. But, no documentary evidence has been produced that Rs. 15000/- has been deducted from his salary. Hence, no compensation need to be awarded in this regard. It is not in dispute that the appellant is a retired Railway servant and he was having 23.62% permanent disability. The learned Tribunal has rightly assessed the compensation of Rs. 50,000/- for permanent disability which has been caused to the appellant due to accident. 7. It has been stated that total hip replacement has been done of the appellant but, Exhibit-23, the permanent disability certificate goes to show that only joint has been replaced and the appellant is having difficulty to sit cross leg. 8. Hence, looking at the above, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just, proper and adequate. There is no need to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal. 9. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.