JUDGMENT 1. - The appellant, Smt. Krishna Basotiya, has challenged the award dated 18.08.2011 passed by the Judge, Special Court (Communal Riots/MACT), Jaipur, whereby the learned Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs. 7,57,687/- alongwith an interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition to the appellant. 2. The brief facts of the case are that on 27.02.2010, the appellant was going alongwith her husband on an Activa scooter from the Old Octroi Check Post towards the Queens Road. Around 11.00 P.M. when they reached at the turning point on Vaishali Marg, suddenly a car, bearing registration No.RJ14-CB-3370, being driven rashly and negligently, came from the wrong side and hit the scooter. Consequently the appellant suffered grievous injuries as both her thighs were fractured, and the tibia and fibula bones of her right arm were equally fractured. While recovering from the said injuries, she had to undergo an operation. The doctors had to insert a steel rod in her legs. She was in the hospital from 27.02.2010 till 02.03.2010, and again from 02.03.2010 till 06.04.2010. Despite her recovery, she had suffered a permanent disablement of 25.7%. Eventually she filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal. In order to substantiate her case, she examined herself and her husband as witnesses and submitted 251 documents. The insurance company neither examined any witness, nor submitted any document. After going through the oral and the documentary evidence, the learned Tribunal granted the compensation as aforementioned. Hence, this appeal for enhancement. 3. Mr. K.N. Tiwari, the learned counsel for the appellant, has relied on the case of Narendra Singh v. Nishant Sharma & Anr. [Civil Appeal No.7109 of 2013, decided on 23.08.2013] and has pleaded that in the said case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that considering the fact that the injury may not only debilitate a person, but may also lead to loss of amenities and enjoyment of life, the Tribunal should be generous while awarding compensation in the said category. However, according to the learned counsel, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has merely granted Rs. 10,000/- for mental and physical pain and agony. Therefore, the said amount deserves to be enhanced. Moreover, although the appellant had pleaded her income to be Rs. 20,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal has assessed her income as merely Rs. 10,000/- per month. However, according to the learned counsel, in the present case, the learned Tribunal has merely granted Rs. 10,000/- for mental and physical pain and agony. Therefore, the said amount deserves to be enhanced. Moreover, although the appellant had pleaded her income to be Rs. 20,000/- per month, the learned Tribunal has assessed her income as merely Rs. 10,000/- per month. Therefore, assessment of income is on the lower side. Hence, the impugned award deserves to be interfered with. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Virendra Agrawal, the learned counsel for the respondent-insurance company, has contended that the appellant had submitted two Income Tax Returns for the Assessment Year 2009-2010 (Ex. 223) and for the Assessment Year 2010-11 (Ex. 227). According to the first Income Tax Return, the appellant's income was Rs. 2,25,550/-; according to the second Income Tax Return, her income had increased to Rs. 2,85,128/-. Hence, despite the accident, her income had actually increased. Thus, she did not suffer any loss of income due to her accident. 5. Secondly, the learned Tribunal had erred in relying upon a disability certificate (Ex. 13) issued by S.K. Soni Hospital, Jaipur. Relying on the case of United Indian Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vishnu & Ors. [2013 RAR 319] , the learned counsel has contended that in the said case, this court had clearly held that the disability certificate issued by a private hospital should not be relied upon. 6. In rejoinder, Mr. Tiwari has contended that the appellant had met with an accident on 27.02.2010. In fact, the Assessment Year 2010-11 refers prior to the date of accident. Therefore, the income shown in the second Income Tax Return (Ex. 227) relates prior to the accident. Hence, the appellant's income did not increase after the accident. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned award, and considered the case laws cited at the Bar. 8. According to the first Income Tax Return (Ex. 223), the appellant's gross income was Rs. 2,25,550/-. But after deductions, it was reduced to Rs. 1,76,070/-. Similarly according to the second Income Tax Return (Ex. 227), her gross income was Rs. 2,85,128/-. But the net income, after deduction, was merely Rs. 2,23,470/-. Thus, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in taking the appellant's income to be approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month. Therefore, the assessment of income cannot be faulted with. 9. Mr. 1,76,070/-. Similarly according to the second Income Tax Return (Ex. 227), her gross income was Rs. 2,85,128/-. But the net income, after deduction, was merely Rs. 2,23,470/-. Thus, the learned Tribunal was certainly justified in taking the appellant's income to be approximately Rs. 10,000/- per month. Therefore, the assessment of income cannot be faulted with. 9. Mr. Agrawal is unjustified in raising both his contentions. For, the insurance company has not filed any appeal before this court challenging the findings of the learned Tribunal. Therefore, if the insurance company wishes to plead that there was no loss of income, or that the disability certificate could not be relied upon, it ought to have filed either an appeal or a cross-objection. However, the insurance company has failed to do so. Therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the insurance company are unacceptable. 10. As far as Mr. Tiwari's argument with regard to non-pecuniary categories is concerned, suffice it to say that an award is not meant to be a bonanza, but is meant to be just and reasonable. Considering the fact that the accident had occurred in 2010, considering the fact that the appellant has been awarded Rs. 7,57,687/- alongwith an interest in the year 2011, the compensation is certainly just and reasonable. 11. For the reasons stated above, this court does not find any merit in the present appeal. It is hereby, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******