THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.1348 OF 2001 O R D E R: This appeal is directed against the order dated 10.10.2000 passed in O.P.No.170 of 1998, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the claim of the appellant herein was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.70,000/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The appellant herein filed claim application before the Tribunal seeking compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.7.1997. According to the claimant, besides other injuries, he suffered damage to the kidney and the left kidney was also removed by surgical intervention at NIMS, Hyderabad. 4. The respondent/insurer filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. After due enquiry, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.70,000/- as compensation with interest at 12% p.a. Not satisfied with the compensation, the claimant filed the present appeal, seeking enhancement. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that though the claimant suffered loss of kidney on account of accident, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.15,000/- towards compensation in that regard and did not estimate the loss of earning capacity by applying any multiplier. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent/insurer, would on the other hand, contend that the claimant has not examined any doctor, who treated him and performed operation and the medical certificates produced by the claimant are not duly proved. He would, therefore, contend that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar alias Raju v Yudhvir Singh and another[1], in the absence of evidence of doctor, the Tribunal ought not to have taken into consideration the medical record produced by the claimant. 7. Ex.A.3 Certified copy of the discharge card issued by NIMS, Ex.A.4 Medico legal record issued by Vivekananda hospital, Ex.A.5 Out patient medical card issued by NIMS, Ex.A.6 Medical card issued by NIMS in the evening clinic and Ex.A.7 Bunch of prescriptions, 10 in number, would go to show that the claimant was, in fact, hospitalised and he underwent nephrotomy of left kidney. However, the claimant failed to examine any doctor from any of the hospitals, where he took treatment to show the length of treatment or duration of hospitalisation or the nature of the injuries and their impact on physical and functional disability and how the same affects his loss of earning capacity. In the absence of evidence of the concerned medical Experts or medical Officers, it is considered neither just nor proper to place reliance on the medical record produced by the claimant, the contents of which are not duly proved. At the same time, it is also improper to reject the claim of the claimant altogether, especially when he is shown to have suffered a major injury resulting in loss of kidney. 8. Under those circumstances, it is considered just and proper to remit the matter to the Tribunal to enable the claimant to examine the Doctors, who are connected with the treatment or any other competent Medical Expert. 9. In the circumstances, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal according to law after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce further evidence they may choose to let in. As the claim is of the year 1998, the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. In the result, the appeal is disposed of accordingly. No costs. __________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 16th November, 2008 Note: Office to dispatch the Lower Court record along with copy of the order to the Tribunal expeditiously. PNV [1] 2008(7) SCC 305