JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Mahesh Chandra Sharma, J. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal for enhancement of the quantum of compensation. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellant along with one Nawal Kishore was going on 14.02.2005 on his bicycle at about 7'O clock in evening near Vidhan Sabha, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. All of sudden, a fiat car bearing No. RPZ-4485 which was driven rashly and negligently hit the cycle of the appellant and pursuant to the said accident the appellant and Nawal Kishore sustained injuries. It is further submitted that the appellant also filed FIR No. 29/2005 in the Police Station Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur and the vehicle was seized and thus appellant prayed for appropriate damages on account of said accident. It is further submitted that the respondent No. 1 was deleted vide order dated 18.12.2006 and respondent No. 2 remained ex parte and the respondent No. 3 filed the reply and contested the claim. It is further contended that the plaintiff examined AW1 and AW2 and produced Ex.-1 to 107, whereas the respondents did not led any evidence. It is further contended that initially the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal decided the claim petition vide order dated 24.11.2009 awarding claim with a tune of Rs. 546100.00/- with interest but the said order was challenged by the insurance company and in terms of the remand order dated 8.8.2011 passed by this Hon'ble Court the matter was remanded back to the trial court to decide Issue no. 4 afresh. It is further contended that pursuant to the said direction the learned Tribunal decided Issue no. 4 vide order dated 27.7.2012 and reduced the original claim amount from 546100.00/- with interest to Rs. 302000.00/- with interest, being aggrieved of which this reduction in the claim amount, the appellant prefers this appeal. On behalf of the appellant, claim petition was filed before the concerned Tribunal wherein notices were issued to the opposite parties. Reply was filed and issues were framed by the Tribunal. 302000.00/- with interest, being aggrieved of which this reduction in the claim amount, the appellant prefers this appeal. On behalf of the appellant, claim petition was filed before the concerned Tribunal wherein notices were issued to the opposite parties. Reply was filed and issues were framed by the Tribunal. After hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the following impugned award:- ^^vr izkFkhZ dk vkosnu i= foi{khx.k ds fo:) vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj izkFkhZx.k ds i{k esa rFkk foi{khx.k ds fo:) 3]02]000@& :i;s rhu yk[k nks gtkj :i;s dk vfUre iapkV la;qDr% ,oa i`Fkdr% :i esa ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA bl jkf'k esa ls bl U;k;kf/kdj.k ds fu.kZ; fnukafdr 24-11-2009 ds }kjk tks jkf'k vnk dh xbZ og jkf'k lek;ksftr dh tkosxh] 'ks"k jkf'k ij izkFkZuki= dh izLrqfr dh frfFk ls rk olwyh rd 07 izfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k nj ls C;kt Hkh izkFkhZx.k foi{khx.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh jgsxkA ;gkWa ;g Li"V djuk mfpr gksxk fd iwoZ esa ftl C;kt nj ls jkf'k izkFkhZ us jkf'k izkIr dh gS] oks C;kt nj ;Fkkor gh jgsxh ijUrq 'ks"k jkf'k tks cph gS] ml ij 07 izfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k] nj ls C;kt izkFkZuk i= dh izLrqfr dh frfFk ls rk olwyhs rd izkFkhZx.k foi{khx.k ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA izkIr gksus okyh jkf'k lHkh izkFkhZ ds cpr [kkrs esa tek djok;h tkosxhA foi{khx.k mDr izfrdj jkf'k fu;ekuqlkj izkFkhZ ds uke tfj;s psd ;k M~kQ~V cuokdj bl U;k;kf/kdj.k esa tek djok;sxsaA 'ks"k jkf'k ds laca/k esa izkFkhZ dk vkosnu i= fujLr fd;k tkrk gSA** 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal while deciding the claim petition vide order dated 24.11.2009 passed the award of Rs. 546100.00/-. Thereafter appeal was filed in the High Court and the matter was remanded on dated 8.8.2011 in which after hearing both the parties, Tribunal reduced the amount from Rs.546100.00/- to 302000.00/-. Learned counsel has further contended that the reducing the earlier award from 546100.00/- to 302000.00/- under issue no.4 & 5 by the learned Tribunal is arbitrary and perverse and is against the material on record. Learned counsel has further contended that the reducing the earlier award from 546100.00/- to 302000.00/- under issue no.4 & 5 by the learned Tribunal is arbitrary and perverse and is against the material on record. Learned counsel has further contended that while reducing the compensation amount, only argument advanced by the counsel for the appellant was that the financial capacity of the appellant was not affected, and thus the learned Tribunal has not applied the correct multiplier while deciding the claim amount as per the decision relied upon, whereas looking to the injuries of the appellant and looking to the fact that the appellant has sustained injuries having permanent disability of 28.43% thus the claim amount ought not to have been reduced from Rs.5,46,100/- to Rs.3,02,000/-. Further he has contended that no justification has been given by the Tribunal while passing the order and award dated 27.07.2012 as to why the amount is being reduced from the amount already awarded by the Tribunal in earlier order. Learned counsel has contended that the appellants has remained in hospital for 33 days and injuries suffered by him are grievous in nature and due to this, the appellant has remained on leave for approximately 10 months. Further he has contended that the award of the Tribunal nowhere indicates that why the amount is being reduced from Rs.546100.00/- to Rs.302000.00/- specifically under issue Nos. 4 and 5. According to him, minimum Rs.10,00,000/- should be enhanced in the award dated 27.7.2012. 4. On the other hand, Ms. Lalima Purohit appearing on behalf of Mr. Alok Garg counsel for the respondents seriously opposed the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant. She has contended that the award passed by the Tribunal is just and proper, and no interference is called for by this court. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment/award under appeal. 6. Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case specially the facts that the appellant has remained on leave for ten months, injuries are serious in nature i.e. he has sustained injuries having permanent disability of 28.43% due to fractures in ribs, hips and legs, I deem it just and proper to increase Rs.2,44,000/- under issue no.4 & 5 in addition to the amount already awarded by the learned Tribunal. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed, impugned judgment/award is modified, and Rs. 7. Accordingly, this appeal is partly allowed, impugned judgment/award is modified, and Rs. 2,44,000/- (rupees two lac and forty four thousands only) is ordered to be enhanced under issue no. 4 and 5. This amount shall be in addition to the amount awarded by the learned Tribunal and the claimant-appellant is held entitled to get the aforesaid amount. It is also directed that the respondent-insurance company shall deposit the aforesaid enhanced amount with the learned Tribunal within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and the same shall be disbursed to the claimant/s immediately. In case the amount is not paid to the claimant/s within the stipulated period of six weeks, the claimant/s shall be entitled to interest @ 9% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of passing of this judgment. Rest of the terms under the award shall remain unchanged. 8. However, it is made clear that if there is any breach of insurance policy or violation of the terms of the policy, the respondent/insurance company shall be at liberty to move an application before the executing court for recovering the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle or he can move an application before this court for recalling of the order. 9. The impugned award stands modified, as indicated here-in-above.