Guman Mal Lodha, J. - (1.)THIS is a claimant's appeal for enhancement of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the tune of Rs. 23,320/ -, although the claim was of Rs. 76,970/ -. The accident took place on 7th October, 1980, when the claimant, Prakash Chand Jain started from his house to his office at Somani Building, near Mayank Cinema, in the morning at about 7.45 a.m., a scooter auto -vehicle bearing No. RJE 665 which was being driven by Alladin, Respondent No. 1, owned by Narain, Respondent No. 2 and insured by Respondent No. 3, struck the scooter of the claimant with force, near Bhawanisingh Road, with the result the scooter of the claimant took turn back to Vidyut Marg -Jyoti Nagar though he was going towards Bhawanisingh Road. The auto -vehicle was being driven rashly and negligently by the driver -Respondent No. 1, resulting in sustaining serious injuries on the hands, legs, chest, etc., including fracture on his left leg, on the person of the claimant.
(2.)ON account of the said accident, the Appellant has suffered mental and physical injuries and had to suffer heavy economic losses be sides the fall in the efficiency in his work which could have been undertaken by him. Under various heads the claimant claimed Rs. 76,790/ -. Respondent No. 1 was charged under Sections 279 and 338, Indian Penal Code before the Judicial Magistrate No. 15, Jaipur City where he has admitted his guilt and was convicted and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 200/ -. After framing of the issues and recording of the evidence, the Tribunal decided issue Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the claimant fully, while issue No. 3 was decided partly in favour of the Appellant. The claim was decreed for Rs. 23,320/ - as mentioned above. Thus this appeal by the claimant.
The Only point pressed by Mr. Bhargava, appearing on behalf of the claimant is that the Tribunal has committed serious error in rejecting the claim of Rs. 30,000/ -. It was pointed out that there was fracture below the joint of the knee of left leg of the Appellant in this accident, on account of which his efficiency and capacity to work has been impaired. According to him, the claimant cannot climb staircase without any support and even in walking it creates trouble and difficulty. The claimant cannot run and cannot play the games and has been deprived of a happy life in various ways.

(3.)THE Tribunal has -rejected this claim on the ground that the doctor has stated that the fracture has been treated well. Doctor has only stated that Prakash Chand has been advised not to run and not to work strenuously.