JUDGMENT : Mohinder Pal, J. In the present appeal, out of the total compensation of Rs.9,31,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Aux.) at Godhra, Dist. Panchmahals (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") by judgment dated 30.6.2000 in MACP No. 1227 of 1996, the appellant Insurance Company have challenged only a portion of the award, i.e. Rs.2,75,000/-, on various grounds. 2. As per the facts of this case, on 22.6.1996 the claimant was travelling on his tractor No. GJ-17-T-558 from his village Borkheda to Godhra for the purpose of service of the tractor. In the early morning at abut 07.00 a.m. when he reached near Jekot Police Station and was driving on the correct side of the road, at that time, opponent No. 1 came behind driving his truck No. GJ-16-T-8520 in a rash and negligent manner. The truck was being driven at very high speed and the driver lost control and hit the tractor and trolley from behind as a result of which the claimant fell down on the back of his body and received injuries. He was taken to hospital where he remained admitted for 261 days. The claimant was earning Rs.1,25,000/- per annum for doing work on tractor on the field of others. As a result of the accident, the claimant sustained paralytic attack because of fracture of back bone and he was paralysed. It is contended that because of this injury the claimant was unable to do his agricultural work and, therefore, claimed compensation to the tune of Rs.12,00,000/- from the opponent. 3. Notice of this claim petition was issued to opponents No. 1 & 2 who did not appear despite service. However, respondent No. 3, i.e. Insurance Company, contested the claim on various grounds. 4. The Tribunal, after taking into account the extent of damage suffered by the claimant, his annual income and other circumstances, awarded compensation to the tune of Rs.9,31,000/- payable by the opponents. Though the present appellant have not disputed the total amount of compensation awarded to the claimant, however, they have disputed a part of the award, i.e. Rs.2,75,000/-, on various grounds, which are also referred by learned counsel for the Insurance Company before this Court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Majmudar, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. Majmudar, learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company, has submitted that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence. According to him, yearly income of the claimant has been wrongly assessed as Rs.50,000/- as the claimant has failed to produce any documentary evidence like bills of sale of crop or fertilizer etc. to substantiate his claim. It is also submitted that the Tribunal considered the disability sustained by the claimant to the extent of 50% of the body as a whole and has not deducted 50% from the income of the claimant while considering the amount payable to the claimant. Finally it has been argued that the Tribunal committed an error while awarding interest on the amount payable to the claimant which was contrary and against the principles of law. While relying on these averments, it has been submitted that the claim petition was liable to succeed. 6. The facts of this case are not in dispute. In order to prove disability, the claimant has relied upon medical certificate as well as evidence of the doctor. As per his evidence, the claimant was admitted to hospital on 25.5.2996 till 27.8.1996 and again on 24.3.1997 to 18.8.1997. The claimant was once again admitted to hospital on 13.5.1999 till 13.7.1999 and as such he remained in the hospital as an indoor patient for more than 200 days. He suffered paralytic attack because of the fracture of back bone. To prove the fact regarding disability, the medical certificate issued by Dr. Agrawal has been produced, according to which the claimant sustained 100% permanent partial disablement. 7. It is well known fact that in case of injury to back bone of this nature, the person cannot lead a normal life. He has to undergo major changes in his life style. He cannot lift weight which he could have lifted before injury. He will require special comforts and assistance of others for rest of his life. He cannot use Indian toilets and will have to remain dependent upon English toilets. He cannot do the same agricultural work which he might have been doing before the accident. As has come in evidence, the claimant was ploughing field of others with his tractor before the accident. He cannot use Indian toilets and will have to remain dependent upon English toilets. He cannot do the same agricultural work which he might have been doing before the accident. As has come in evidence, the claimant was ploughing field of others with his tractor before the accident. Perhaps, he will not be able to drive tractor after the accident because of the fracture and strain caused to his back bone. It is also not in dispute that the claimant has remained admitted as an indoor patient in the hospital for more than 200 days. In that eventuality, he might have needed assistance of one or two attendants to shift his body and to take him to toilet. 200 days of hospitalization might have required a lot of money. He might have spent some money on medicines as well as physiotherapy which is an essential treatment to this type of injury. As has come in evidence, the claimant has suffered 50% permanent disablement of his entire body and 100% disablement of the lower part of body and other normal activities of his life must have been reduced. The appellant Insurance Company has challenged only a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- to be the excess amount of compensation payable to the claimant. However, keeping in view the nature of injury, period of hospitalization, nature of job which the claimant was doing prior to the accident and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the sum of Rs.9,31,000/- awarded by the Tribunal as compensation is just and proper. Accordingly, the judgment of the Tribunal is hereby confirmed and upheld. Present appeal is devoid of any merits and the same is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.