JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (‘the Act’) has been filed by the appellant-Corporation aggrieved against the award dated 22.4.2014 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Udaipur (‘the Tribunal’), whereby the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 4,08,000/- along with interest @ 9% p.a. from the date of filing of the application for compensation to the respondent-claimant. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the respondent inter-alia with the averments that on 13.12.2009 at about 7:30 p.m. he was waiting at bus stand Delwara when Bus No. RJ-06-P-1805 came and after the passengers deboarded from the bus and he tried to board the bus, the driver moved the bus, resulting in his falling down and the rear wheel of the bus crushed his right leg and he suffered other injuries also, It was alleged that the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver and he was entitled to compensation to the tune of Rs.25,54,500/-. 3. The application for compensation was resisted by the driver and the Corporation. 4. The Tribunal framed two issues. On behalf of the claimant, he himself was examined and produced 48 documents. 5. On behalf of the Corporation, NAW-1 Ramchandra Shrimali was examined and 12 documents were produced. 6. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the vehicle in question was involved in the accident and the accident occurred on account of rash and negligent driving by the driver. Regarding the determination of compensation, the Tribunal awarded pecuniary damages i.e. Rs.2,23,277/- towards treatment expenses, Rs.12,000/- towards expenses at hospital, Rs.15,000/- towards conveyance, Rs.3,000/- towards nutritious food and Rs.2,000/- towards loss of property. 7. For non-pecuniary damages, the Tribunal found that the claim remained on 1/2 leave for 82 days and awarded a sum of Rs.40,180/- towards loss of salary and for the future loss of income, came to the conclusion that the claimant was not entitled to any sum. 8. Regarding pain and suffering and the fact that in the disability certificate, the disability had been indicated at 30%, he was awarded a sum of Rs.1 lac and for loss of amenities Rs.12,500/- was awarded, further interest was awarded @ 9% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 3.7.2010 till the date of payment. 9. 8. Regarding pain and suffering and the fact that in the disability certificate, the disability had been indicated at 30%, he was awarded a sum of Rs.1 lac and for loss of amenities Rs.12,500/- was awarded, further interest was awarded @ 9% p.a. from the date of application i.e. 3.7.2010 till the date of payment. 9. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal committed error in coming to the conclusion that the driver of the bus was negligent, it was submitted that in fact, it was the claimant himself, who appears to have tried to board the bus after the gate was closed, which resulted in his falling down and suffering the injury and therefore, the Corporation cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. It was further submitted that the award of compensation is excessive and therefore, the same deserves to be interfered with. 10. Learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant duly supported the award and it was submitted that from the evidence available on record, it is clear that it was the driver of the bus, who was negligent in driving the bus and that amount awarded by the Tribunal, in fact, is lower side and therefore, the award impugned does not call for any interference. 11. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 12. A bare perusal of the material available on record indicated that the appellant-Corporation failed to prove that the gate of the bus was closed and that it claimant tried to board the bus and fell down on account of said attempt. Neither the conductor of the bus appeared in the witness-box nor other evidence was produced in this regard to support the said theory. Further the fact that there was any scope for attempt to board the bus after the gate was closed cannot be said that the injured was in any manner responsible for the said accident and the very fact that the injured claimant had suffered injuries from the rear wheel of the bus clearly indicates the negligence of the driver of the appellant-Corporation. The findings recorded by the Tribunal appear to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. The findings recorded by the Tribunal appear to be just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 13. Learned Counsel for the appellant has failed to show any perversity in the said finding so as to require interference in this appeal. 14. So far as award of compensation to the injured is concerned, the Trial Court has reimbursed the amount of pecuniary loss to the claimant to the extent of Rs.2,55,000/- and has awarded Rs.40,180/- towards loss of salary on account of leave taken by him during the period of his treatment and has awarded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.12,500/- towards loss of amenities, reset all the claims made by the injured have been denied. 15. The payment of pecuniary loss is based on documentary evidence like bills etc. available on record and therefore, the same does not call for any suffering interference. 16. So far as award of amount for compensation regarding pain and suffering is concerned, a very fact that the injured remains on leave for 82 days, underwent treatment for which the medical expenses have run into a sum of Rs.2,23,277/- and the disability certificate shows disability to the extent of 30%, though for said disability on account of nature of work being undertaken by the injured, no amount has been awarded to him, the award of a sum of Rs.1 lac towards pain and suffering cannot be said to be excessive in the circumstances of the case. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.