JUDGMENT : P.A. Mohammed, J. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in O.P. (MV) No. 695 of 1987 of the M.A.C.T., Kottayam are the appellants. They filed this appeal against the award of the Tribunal dated 15.3.1990 in the above claim petition. The appellant No. 1 is the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident and the appellant No. 2 is its owner. The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein are the claimant and the driver of the lorry involved in the accident. The respondent No. 1 filed the above application for compensation in respect of the injuries sustained by him during the accident which took place on 31.3.1987 while he was riding the motor cycle. He claimed a total compensation of Rs. 1,12,750/-. The Tribunal after the enquiry allowed the entire amount claimed with 12 per cent interest. Hence this appeal has been filed by the appellants. 2. The only contention urged by the appellants is that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is excessive. In this connection it is pointed out that there was no material before the Tribunal to award such a huge amount towards compensation. 3. The appellants specifically directed their attack against the grant of Rs. 50,000 for permanent disability. In order to substantiate this contention Exhs. A7, A8 and A9 certificates were relied on. These certificates were not legally proved since the persons who issued these certificates were not examined in Court. Further, these certificates do not show the extent of disability caused to the claimant. It is also brought to our notice that a sum of Rs. 24,000/- had been granted as compensation for pain and suffering in view of the injuries sustained in the accident. In the absence of any disability certificate, we found it difficult to approve the grant of Rs. 50,000/- for permanent disability. In fact Exh. A12 agreement executed by the claimant with the employer dated 17.11.87 would evince that the claimant could very well attend to the normal duties. That means he had no permanent disablement attracting the award of compensation. In other words, there was no basis for awarding the compensation under this head. Considering all these aspects, we are inclined to disallow the aforesaid sum of Rs. 50,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards compensation for permanent disability. 4. Likewise, the grant of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of earning power has been seriously attacked. In other words, there was no basis for awarding the compensation under this head. Considering all these aspects, we are inclined to disallow the aforesaid sum of Rs. 50,000/- granted by the Tribunal towards compensation for permanent disability. 4. Likewise, the grant of Rs. 5,000/- for loss of earning power has been seriously attacked. In fact the counsel points out that there was no loss of earning power in the case of the claimant in view of the fact that subsequent to the accident the claimant had got employment as per Exh. A12. Therefore, we are also inclined to disallow Rs. 5,000/- for loss of earning power. 5. Even though the counsel also challenged the grant of compensation under other different heads, we do not propose to alter those awards in view of the circumstances available in this case. 6. After deducting the amount of Rs. 55,000/- as above said the claimant is entitled to a sum of Rs. 57,750/- with 12 per cent interest from the date of the petition till the date of realisation. The appellant No. 1 is liable to indemnify the claimant for the compensation fixed above. The impugned award is accordingly modified to the extent indicated above. The appeal is partly allowed.