THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.3461 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is preferred aggrieved by the order and decree dated 27.03.2003 in O.P.No.135 of 2001 on the file of the Chairman, III Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 24.10.2000 at about 1.30 P.M. at the culvert, Gajikunta, Jawahar Nagar village, Venkatapur Mandal, Warangal District, when the petitioner, Balla Ravinder, the injured was travelling in bus bearing No.AP 10 Z 3096 from Pasara to Hanamkonda, the driver of the said bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at high speed, lost control over the bus and hit the culvert and then hit a tree and caused accident, resulting which, he received serious injuries. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal granted compensation excessively without going into the merits of the case. The Tribunal ought not to have relied upon Ex.A.6 prescription which shows the age of the claimant, which was not issued for the purpose of assessing age and as such the claimant does not produce any certificate to show his age, and that the Tribunal grossly relying on Ex.A.7 without there being any examination of issuing authority. Thereby grossly erred in applying the multiplier. Now, the point for consideration is whether the amount of compensation granted by the Tribunal is sustainable. A perusal of the impugned order, the Tribunal while observing that PW.1 sustained injuries on left ankle, swelling on right joint, contusion on metacarpal and contusion on forehead, though the said injuries do not warrant for application of multiplier in view of its gravity, the medical certificate marked as Ex.A.4 shows that the injured sustained only simple injuries. Nowhere it is mentioned that those injuries are grievous in nature. The petitioner not filed X-ray and also not examined the doctor, who issued disability certificate. More over, in my view the reliance of the Tribunal on Ex.A.7 is erroneous. The Tribunal ought not to have taken cognizance of the contents of Ex.A.7 certificate for non-examination of the doctor, who issued the same. Moreover, admittedly, the injured sustained injuries on 24.10.2000 and the alleged physically handicapped certificate is dated 18.01.2003. There is a gap of three years in between the said two documents and the Tribunal had taken into consideration Ex.A.7 and granted compensation with fancy figure without going into the merits of the case. The non-examination of the doctor, who examined the petitioner-injured is fatal and in any view of the matter, the document Ex.A.6, do not warrants for reliance. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal placing reliance on Ex.A.7 is very much erroneous and granting of compensation on unproved document needs interference of the Court. Therefore, granting of Rs.3,000/- towards simple injury, which comes to Rs.9,000/- towards pain and suffering is suffice to meet the ends of justice. With this modification, the appeal is allowed in part and the compensation awarded by the lower Court for Rs.67,000/- is reduced to Rs.10,000/-. In view of the findings of the Court, and in view of the pendency of the matter since 2001, and also reduction of the compensation to Rs.10,000/- from Rs.67,000/- , the granting of interest at 9% by the lower Court holds good in the special circumstances of the case. K.S.APPA RAO,J 11th February, 2011 PNV