JUDGMENT Heard finally. 2. Admit. 3. The respondents-State, owners of the vehicle assail the award in M.A.C.P. No. 166 of 2008 awarding amount of Rs. 1,04,000/- to the claimant for the injury suffered by him. 4. Learned A.G.P. says that nature of injuries suffered by original claimant is not of permanent caliber. The evidence of Medical Officer supporting injury certificate, demonstrates he was unaware of the Government gazette. 5. The record illustrates that, original respondent No. 2-employee of appellant, was driver of the jeep bearing No. MH-25-6096. It has been established that the jeep was driven in excessive speed and rather in negligent manner, which resulted into causing accident and original claimant suffering the injuries. The Medical record, original of which is seen, illustrates suffering of fracture to the femur by the claimant. He had undergone turmoil of attending hospital persistently, medical bills of expenses are tendered, exhibited by the learned Member. 6. The assessment of evidence, including medical bills, treating the disability to be 29% based on certificate Exh.61 is in tune with the available record. Disability was due to fracture of left S.C. Transcondylar femur. Learned Member has indicated in extending the monetary benefits for his suffering, as he has restricted the same to Rs. 2000/- per percent for disability amounting to Rs.58,000/- and Rs. 5000/- as pains. 7. The nature of work assignment carried by the claimant, was also discussed in para 17 of the judgment. Evidence of employer, CW 4 Prabhakar Kashinath Sagar, illustrates that the claimant was a Supervisor and used to supervise the plastic production, get it stored in godown to make the delivery and to recover the amount. Naturally, the activities of supervisor was not stationary in its character and required frequent movement. It has arrested his physical capacity. The disability certificate Exh. 61 in the situation does not call for criticism, as has been done. First appeal dismissed with costs. The original claimant is entitled to receive the amount subject to account. Appeal dismissed.