JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. This appeal is directed against order dated 04.03.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali ('the Tribunal'), whereby, the Tribunal while exercising powers under Section 151 CPC has modified the award dated 30.10.2013 passed earlier and instead of a sum of Rs. 75,000/- awarded vide award dated 30.10.2013, a sum of Rs. 1,31,000/- has been awarded. 2. The application for compensation was filed by the respondent on account of the injuries suffered by him, when he met with an accident with the insured vehicle. 3. Based on the material available before the Tribunal, the Tribunal by award dated 30.10.2013 awarded a sum of Rs. 75,000/- as compensation. 4. After the award was passed, an application was filed by the claimant under Section 151 CPC, inter alia, indicating that a sum of Rs. 58,000/-, which pertained to the medical bill and was marked as Exhibit-72, was not taken into consideration while passing the award and, therefore, the award be modified. The application was opposed by the appellant Insurance Company on several grounds. 5. The Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that apparently a sum of Rs. 58,000/-, which was paid by the claimant to the hospital vide Exhibit-72, on account of inadvertence was not taken into consideration and allowed the application filed by the claimant under Section 151 CPC and modified the award, whereby, the sum awarded to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- has been enhanced to Rs. 1,31,000/-. 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal was not justified in enhancing the amount of compensation already awarded. It was submitted that even a look at Exhibit-72 indicates that the claimant in fact had paid a sum of Rs. 29,000/- only and not Rs. 58,000/- as claimed and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal deserves to be set aside to this extent. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that a bare look at Exhibit-72 clearly reveals that the bill was for a sum of Rs. 58,000/-, claimant had paid Rs. 28,000/- as advance and after a discount of Rs. 2,000/-, the balance amount was paid, however, apparently it has wrongly been indicated that the claimant has only paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 8. 58,000/-, claimant had paid Rs. 28,000/- as advance and after a discount of Rs. 2,000/-, the balance amount was paid, however, apparently it has wrongly been indicated that the claimant has only paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the Tribunal including Exhibit-72. Exhibit-72 is a discharge bill dated 07.05.2012 issued by one Krishna Hospital, Bhilwara. The bill indicates the date of admission as on 04.05.2012 and discharged on 07.05.2012. Various charges pertaining to the hospital including for the surgery undergone by the claimant has been indicated and the same shows a total amount of Rs. 58,000/-. There is a mention of advance receipts dated 04.05.2012 and 06.05.2012 for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and Rs. 27,000/- respectively and a discount of Rs. 2,000/-. However, thereafter the bill indicates 'net payable amount Rs. 1,000/-' and 'paid amount by cash Rs. 1,000/-'. However, the total of the bill in words has been indicated as 'Rupees fifty eight thousand only'. 9. The discharge bill no doubt is confusing, wherein, by applying simple calculation, the amount payable by the claimant, comes to Rs. 27,000/-. However, the same has been indicated as Rs. 1,000/- only. 10. The submission made by learned counsel for the appellant based on the indication of net payable amount and amount paid by cash, does not appear to be justified, inasmuch as, when the document was exhibited, no question was put to the claimant on the said aspect, wherein, he could have clarified the position. Further, there does not appear to be any reasonable cause for the hospital to give a bill of Rs. 58,000/- and thereafter though indicate a discount of Rs. 2,000/- only but then charge a total sum of Rs. 29,000/- only. The particulars for the various amounts indicated in the discharge bill showing a total amount of Rs. 58,000/- also does not include any such item, which could not have been charged by the hospital. 11. In view thereof, though as noticed hereinbefore, the discharge bill produced by the claimant indicates a confusing state of affairs, factually there is no substance in the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. 12. 58,000/- also does not include any such item, which could not have been charged by the hospital. 11. In view thereof, though as noticed hereinbefore, the discharge bill produced by the claimant indicates a confusing state of affairs, factually there is no substance in the submissions made by counsel for the appellant. 12. In view of the above, there is no substance in the appeal and the same is, therefore, dismissed.