JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant-claimant (hereinafter the claimant') being dissatisfied with the award dated 12-5-2004 awarding Rs. 1,50,000/- as compensation passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur for the injuries suffered by him in motor accident of 5-11-2001 has approached this court by filing this miscellaneous appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter `the 1988 Act'). He seeks as in almost every similar case enhancement of compensation. 2. The facts of the case are that the claimant suffered injuries and paralysis of his right hand in an accident of 5-11-2001 involving the vehicle i.e. jeep with registration No.RJ-14/2C-5651 insured with the respondent Oriental Insurance Company. Due to the injuries suffered by the claimant he suffered paralysis of his right hand and is incapable to do day to day normal functions therewith. 3. Learned counsel for the claimant admits that the claimant was a Supervisor with the Agriculture Department, Government of Rajasthan at the relevant time. As such in spite of the accident and consequent paralysis of his right hand he continued to be in employment without any pecuniary loss/ detriment. The learned Tribunal has therefore not awarded any compensation for pecuniary loss. Counsel has no quarrel with the impugned award on that score. He has however submitted that the Tribunal has miserly awarded non-pecuniary compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- only plus interest. Of the aforesaid amount Rs. 1 lac was awarded under the head of physical pain and mental agony and Rs. 50,000/- on account of medical expenses, diet, and transportation charges. Counsel submitted that the trauma suffered by the claimant at the age of 36, as the claimant was at the time of accident, and having to carry paralysis of right hand all through his life, was not appreciated by the Tribunal by limiting the award to Rs. 1 lac only on account of physical pain and mental agony. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal ought to have considered that the age of the claimant was 36 years at the time of accident and he would have to live with the paralysed hand probably for over 35 years. It was submitted that the right hand as the dominant hand of the claimant was central to the day to day functions of the claimant, and paralysis thereof was a continuing trauma for which an award of Rs. 1 lac only was very meagre. It was submitted that the right hand as the dominant hand of the claimant was central to the day to day functions of the claimant, and paralysis thereof was a continuing trauma for which an award of Rs. 1 lac only was very meagre. Counsel submitted that in the case of Sanjay Batham v. Munnalal Parihar [ (2011)10 SCC 665 ] the Hon'ble Supreme Court had awarded Rs. 2 lacs on account of physical pain, suffering and trauma in similar circumstances. Therefore the claimant should have been awarded at least Rs. 2 lacs for physical pain, suffering and trauma. No other argument has been advanced by the counsel for the claimant. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent insurance company has opposed the submission of learned counsel for the claimant and submitted that the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal is just, fair and adequate and brooks no interference in appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award dated 12-5-2004. 6. There is no prescribed standard for determination of compensation for physical pain, suffering and trauma. The award of compensation under such heads lies in the discretion of the Tribunal with reference to facts of each given case. The exercise of discretion by the Tribunal could be interfered with by the appellate court only in the event of the discretion being arbitrarily exercised. It is well established that an appeal against a discretionary order can only be entertained when discretion is exercised contrary to the provision of law. No such argument has been raised and no misapplication of any legal principle in the exercise of discretion by the Tribunal pointed out. To my mind there is nothing wrong, in the facts of the case with the Tribunal awarding compensation of Rs. 1 lac as non pecuniary damages for physical pain, suffering and trauma owing to the fracture and then paralysed right hand in the accident of 5-11-2001. Sitting in the year 2014, this court cannot overlook the fact that a sum of Rs. 1 lac awarded in the year 2004 for the accident of 5-11-2001 was a substantial amount. Reliance by the counsel for the appellant on the judgment in case of Sanjay Batham (supra) is inapposite to the facts of the present case. Sitting in the year 2014, this court cannot overlook the fact that a sum of Rs. 1 lac awarded in the year 2004 for the accident of 5-11-2001 was a substantial amount. Reliance by the counsel for the appellant on the judgment in case of Sanjay Batham (supra) is inapposite to the facts of the present case. The claimant in the said case sustained a head injury with paralysis of the whole of the left part of the body reducing his marriage prospects and thus suffering enormous loss of amenities and enjoyment of life. In the case under consideration the claimant suffered paralysis of the right hand and not the loss of other amenities or losing of marriage prospects as in Sanjay Batham (supra) case. 7. To my mind unless the order passed by the court below is palpably perverse, erroneous or founded upon wrong application of legal principles, there is no occasion for the appellate court to interfere therewith. The discretion of the court below cannot be upset and substituted by the discretion of the appellate court merely for reason of it being the higher court unless the findings of the court below are unsound, perverse and based on unsatisfactory reasons. Nothing erroneous, perverse or illegal can be attributed to the award under challenge. The impugned award, which is a well considered one requires no interference by this court.There is no force in the miscellaneous appeal. Dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******