JUDGMENT : Dinesh Chandra Somani, J. 1. The instant appeal for enhancement of compensation has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the judgment and award dated 07-10-2004 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge No. 1, Fast Track), Bharatpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") passed in MAC No. 382/2004 titled Bheem Singh v. Ravindra Singh & Ors. 2. Briefly stated the claimant/appellant has filed the claim petition with averment that on 03-09-2002 at about 8:00 AM, he was going to his house and when he reached near Kanni Gujar Chauraha (circle) in Bharatpur, driver of a Marshal Jeep No. RJ- 05/C-2220 struck the claimant. The vehicle was driven by non-claimant/ respondent No. 1 rashly and negligently. At the relevant time, non-claimant/respondent No. 2 was registered owner of the vehicle and the vehicle was insured with respondent No. 3 Insurance Company. It was also pleaded that the claimant sustained several injuries on his body including grievous injuries on his Rt. hip and therefore, he became permanently disabled. Claimant demanded Rs.2,00,000/- compensation in different heads, from non-claimant/respondents. 3. Non-claimant/respondent No. 1 & 2 filed joint reply of the claim petition, denying all the material averments made in the petition and prayed to dismiss the petition against them. 4. Non-claimant/respondent No. 3 filed reply of the claim petition, denying all the material averments made in the claim petition and pleaded that driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the vehicle was being used for transportation of passengers, therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against him. 5. After completion of pleadings, learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues. After recording evidence produced by the parties and hearing them, learned Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by non-claimant No. 1, and decided issue No. 1 in favour of the claimant. Learned Tribunal decided issue No. 2 & 4 against the Insurance Company and awarded Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the claimant/appellant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned Tribunal decided issue No. 2 & 4 against the Insurance Company and awarded Rs.30,000/- as compensation to the claimant/appellant with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition. Being aggrieved with the quantum of compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal, the claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant sustained grievous injury in his Rt. hip and was permanently disabled. At the time of accident, the appellant was 85 years old. The claimant-appellant filed a certificate of permanent disability and produced bills of medical expenses for Rs.4,600/- approximately. Learned counsel also submits that the learned Tribunal awarded compensation of a meager amount of Rs.30,000/- only, which requires consideration by this Court and prayed to allow the appeal and to award compensation as prayed in the claim petition. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent No. 3 submits that the compensation awarded by the learned Tribunal is just and adequate and does not call for any interference by this Court in appeal and prayed to dismiss the appeal being devoid of merit. 8. From conjoint reading of statement of Bheem Singh (AW-1), claimant's injury report (Ex.P-4), X-ray report (Ex.P-5) and disablement certificate (Ex.P-61), it reveals that claimant sustained two injuries in the accident, one is of lacerated wound on left hand and second is of swelling with tenderness on right thigh upper half. On X-ray examination, the injury No. 2 was found grievous. It also reveals that on 25-08-2004, the claimant was examined by the Medical Board which was constituted by Principal Medical Officer of Bharatpur. Members of the Medical Board opined that the claimant/appellant had 80% disability, in which 65% should be treated as temporary and 15% to be treated as permanent. Thus, it is proved that the claimant/appellant sustained 15% permanent partial disablement due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. It is not in dispute that age of claimant/appellant was 85 years at the time of accident and no evidence has been produced by the appellant with regard to his income. 9. Looking to the age of the claimant/appellant, nature of injuries and percentage of permanent partial disablement due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, the amount of compensation Rs.25,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be on lower side. 9. Looking to the age of the claimant/appellant, nature of injuries and percentage of permanent partial disablement due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, the amount of compensation Rs.25,000/- awarded by the learned Tribunal cannot be said to be on lower side. Learned Tribunal also awarded Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses. 10. In view of the discussions made above, there is no error or illegality in the impugned judgment, which calls for our interference in appeal. There is no substance in the appeal. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed, being devoid of substance. No costs.