JUDGMENT 1. - Instant appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 assailing the judgment and award dated 20/11/2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk (Raj.) in Claim Case No.138/2007 (Ramnarayan v. Ramesh Chand Sharma & Anr.) whereby the claimants-respondents have been awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,18,839/-. 2. Brief facts noticed are that on 26/08/2007, the claimant-respondent was going on a motorcycle beareing No. RJ-26-SB-6447 with Omprakash as pillion rider from Niwai to Tonk and at that time, near village Sohela on National Highway No.12, a Maruti Car bearing No. RJ-26-CA 0154, coming from the opposite direction from Tonk in a high speed, rash and negligent manner, hit the motorcycle consequent thereto, the respondent-claimant seriously injured and an FIR bearing No.249/2007 to this effect was lodged at Police Station Baroni, Distt. Tonk wherein after investigation the Police submitted charge-sheet. The claim petition was filed by the claimant-respondent before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, after analysing the material and evidence on record, in so far as the present appeal is concerned, allowed claim to the extent of Rs. 1,18,839/- which is assailed herein. 3. Counsel for the appellant contended that the injury is not severe and grievous so as to allow claim to the extent of Rs. 1,18,839/- and even the Tribunal has noticed that the claimant-respondent had received some injuries only but the claim allowed is highly excessive and unreasonable. She further contended that the medical certificate is not reliable, particularly, in view of the fact that Doctor did not come in the witness box to justify the disability suffered/caused to the claimant-respondent. She thus contended that apart from the legal issues, the claim is highly excessive and, therefore, the compensation awarded deserves to be reduced suitably. 4. Counsel for the respondent-claimant supported order of the Tribunal and contended that the compensation awarded is just and proper and the award of the Tribunal is not required to be interfered with as serious disability has been caused and injuries are grievous in nature. 5. 4. Counsel for the respondent-claimant supported order of the Tribunal and contended that the compensation awarded is just and proper and the award of the Tribunal is not required to be interfered with as serious disability has been caused and injuries are grievous in nature. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the parties and gone through the material on record including the impugned award and in my view, the Tribunal has come to a definite finding of fact that the claimant-respondent had received permanent disability to the extent of 9%, he was admitted in the hospital for almost 18 days and two operations had been conducted on account of serious injuries caused to him. The Tribunal has taken into consideration that the claimant-respondent sustained serious injuries on head and number of fractures were there on his body and taking into consideration that he was initially admitted in various hospitals and thereafter referred to Jaipur, the amount has been allowed. In my view, the total amount of Rs. 1,18,839/- includes an amount of Rs. 47,604/- on account of medical bills which is based on original certificates placed on record and keeping that aside, the other amount allowed of Rs. 70,000/- on other heads, hospitalization, operations being conducted, pains and sufferings, loss of income etc. cannot be said to be excessive or unreasonable and in my view, the award of the Tribunal, being just and proper, is not required to be interfered with. 6. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******