HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU C.M.A.No. 2410 of 2003 O R D E R: The Insurance Company is the appellant. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada in M.V.O.P. No.724 of 2001 awarded compensation of Rs.74,447/- as against the claim of the 1st respondent/claimant of Rs.1,00,000/- by Award dated 07.01.2003. The 1st respondent/ claimant was involved in a road accident on 26-04-2001 at about 10.00 p.m. in front of his shop when lorry bearing No. AP 37 T 9177 dashed against him in a rash and negligent manner. 2. Having regard to the evidence of PW1 and Exs.A1,A3 and A4, criminal court records, filed by the claimant, the lower Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion that the claimant was involved in the motor accident relating to that vehicle and suffered injuries. 3. The only point raised by the appellant’s counsel in this appeal is that the claimant did not examine the doctor, who issued Ex.A2, wound certificate, nor proved nature of injuries sustained by him. In this case, immediately after the accident, the injured was taken to the Government Hospital, Gannavaram. No OP chit of the Government Hospital nor wound certificate/extract of accident register issued by the Government Hospital is filed. Subsequently, the injured was shifted to Nagarjuna Hospital, Vijayawada. Ex.A2 wound certificate was issued by a doctor in Nagarjuna Hospital. Ex.A6 is credit medical bill for Rs.32,215/-. Basing on the injuries described in Ex.A2 wound certificate and Ex.A5 bunch of medical bills and Ex.A6 credit medical bill, the lower Tribunal awarded compensation to the above extent. 4. No Medical Officer, who treated PW1 in Nagarjuna Hospital is examined. No doubt, wound certificate or extract of accident register issued by any Government Hospital is liable to be relied upon to prove the factum of the injured sustaining injuries and nature of injuries mentioned therein. But, no such reliance shall be made in so far as certificates issued by private hospitals and private medical practitioner are concerned, without proving the certificates by the doctor concerned. In this case, the lower Tribunal did not Award any compensation for any disability or permanent disability. Therefore, decision of the Supreme Court i n RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJU VS. YUDHVIR SINGH[1] has no application to this case, since Exs.A2 and A6 are not properly proved by examining the doctors connected with them. Therefore, I find it necessary that another opportunity has to be given to the claimant/1st respondent to prove them before the lower Tribunal. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed setting aside the award passed by the lower Tribunal and remitting the matter to the lower Tribunal for giving opportunity to the claimant/1st respondent to prove Exs.A2 and A6. The Insurance company will also have opportunity to lead evidence. No costs. _______________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU, J Dt. 19-11-2010 Mjl/* [1] 2008 (TLS) 46218