JUDGMENT Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 2. The ground of challenge of the award dated 23.10.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal is that the vehicle in question namely Motor Cycle No. U.P. 31C5824 was sold by the appellant to one Rajeshwar Gangwar by the sale deed dated 1.7.2009 and, therefore, the said vehicle was not in possession of the appellant at the time of accident. 3. This submission of learned counsel for the appellant cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of the appellant on the date of accident which is 9.8.2009. Any arrangement made between the appellant and a third person is not relevant in the present matter. 4. Another submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the bills submitted for medical expenditures incurred by the injured were not verified by the Tribunal rather were admitted without application of mind. 5. A perusal of the findings recorded by the Tribunal shows that the claimant met with serious head injuries for which she remained hospitalized for a period of approximately one month i.e. from 10.8.2009 to 4.9.2009. 6. It is proved from the record that she was admitted in Ruhelkhand Medical College on 9.8.2009 soon after the accident and, thereafter was shifted to Ganga Charan Hospital wherein she was operated for serious head injuries. 7. The Tribunal after perusal of the bills of the medical expenditures incurred by the claimant namely Paper No.23Ga/23 computed the compensation for the expenditures and sufferance caused to the claimant. 8. On the contention of learned counsel for the appellant, no interference is required in the findings of fact recorded by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal. In view of the above, the appeal is dismissed.