Judgment G.S.Sharma, J. 1. Heard the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of under Order XLI, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Admittedly, on 18.9.1989, respondent No. 1 was injured in a motor accident, while he was traveling on a bus, bearing registration No. BIN 9836. In the said accident, 3rd to 8th ribs of his right chest were fractured. It is not in dispute that Bus was insured at the relevant time with New India Assurance Company Limited. 3. By impugned judgment and award dated 3.9.1997, Motor Vehicles Claim Tribunal, Bokaro at Chas granted a sum of Rs. 93,600/ - payable as compensation to him under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 . In the present appeal, Insurance Company has not only challenged the quantum of compensation, it has also claimed limited liability for payment of compensation to the tune of Rs. 15,000.00 only. 4. It appears that Insurance policy was not filed before the Tribunal. Here also a photocopy of the insurance certificate has been filed along -with a petition with a prayer to admit it as additional evidence. In respect of claim for limited liability, it was necessary to produce the Insurance policy, so that the Court could have appreciated the claim of the insurer. Prayer for considering the insurance certificate in this appeal will not serve, the purpose, so the prayer is disallowed. 5. I find that Tribunal has committed a grave error in applying multiplier method for assessment of compensation for the injured. In the present case, the Court is required to assess the injury sustained by respondent No. 1 and to grant adequate compensation under the Act. Dr. S.P. Debuka, a Orthopaedic Surgeon, who reported, facture of his 3rd to 8th ribs of right chest was not examined. In his report, Ext. 2, the said Doctor, had also not opined that on account of aforesaid injury, respondent No. 1 had become permanently disabled. 6. Considering the injury sustained by respondent No. 1, whereby he has not become permanently disabled, in my opinion, a lump sum of Rs. 25,000.00 would be just and proper compensation for him. Besides this, respondent No. 1 is also entitled to get 8% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till statutory amount of Rs. Considering the injury sustained by respondent No. 1, whereby he has not become permanently disabled, in my opinion, a lump sum of Rs. 25,000.00 would be just and proper compensation for him. Besides this, respondent No. 1 is also entitled to get 8% interest per annum from the date of filing of the claim case till statutory amount of Rs. 25,000.00 was deposited by the insurer in this Court, for the purpose of this appeal, by Challan No. d-25 dated 12.5.1998. 7. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and award is modified as aforesaid and this appeal is disposed of. 8. The claimant-respondent No. 1 is permitted to withdraw the aforesaid statutory amount of Rs. 25,000.00 on proper verification and in accordance with law. The office is directed to prepare account payee payment order in the name of respondent No. 1.