JUDGMENT P.K. Lohra, J. - Appellants have preferred this appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short, 'Act') to challenge judgment and award dated 11.11.2014 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rajsamand (for short, 'learned Tribunal'). By the judgment and award impugned, learned Tribunal, while adjudicating claim of the respondent-claimant under Section 166 of the Act, has quantified and awarded compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/- for the injuries suffered by him in a road accident. 2. The facts, in brief, are that on 07.02.2011 at about 7.30 PM when respondent-claimant was going on bicycle towards Pipali Ahiran, he was hit by motorcycle No. RJ-30-3M-6118, which was driven rashly by its driver. Due to the accident, respondent-claimant suffered simple and grievous injuries. As per version of the respondent-claimant, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Under different heads, respondent-claimant quantified total amount of compensation to the tune of Rs. 7,70,500/-. In the claim petition, both the appellants were impleaded as non-applicants and as the offending vehicle was not insured compensation was claimed from both of them jointly and severally. 3. The claim petition is contested by appellants and both of them in their joint reply denied occurrence of accident and alternatively averred that the accident occurred due to negligence of the respondent-claimant himself. 4. Learned Tribunal, on the basis of pleadings of rival parties, settled two issues and the rival parties led their evidence. After conclusion of evidence, learned Tribunal heard final arguments and decided Issue No.1 relating to rash and negligent driving against the appellants. While adverting to Issue No.2 regarding quantum of compensation, learned Tribunal moderately assessed compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,30,000/- considering the fact of 7.5% disability suffered by the respondent-claimant. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and award. 6. Upon perusal of impugned judgment and award, in my view, learned Tribunal has not committed any error in appreciation of evidence while recording its finding on Issue No.1 against the appellants and so also on Issue No.2. In totality, learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim of respondent-claimant and in the backdrop of disability suffered by him and awarded just and reasonable compensation, which by no means be categorized as excessive or exorbitant. 7. In view thereof, no interference is made out. In totality, learned Tribunal has partly allowed the claim of respondent-claimant and in the backdrop of disability suffered by him and awarded just and reasonable compensation, which by no means be categorized as excessive or exorbitant. 7. In view thereof, no interference is made out. Consequently, the appeal fails and the same is hereby rejected.