Judgment By Court.-In a motor accident, on 10.3.1993, Hazarilal Choudhary, the respondent no. 1 claimed to have sustained injury and his son, Jai Prakash Choudhary, who was aged about 9 years lost his life. 2. The respondent no.1 filed separate claim application for compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. In the claim application it was stated that he sustained crush injuries in his right leg. While he was going on by-cycle along with his son, a bus (MKL-6366) dashed it from behind, whereby he sustained the said injury. 3. In support of his case, claimant examined himself as A.W. 1 and stated in his examination-in-chief "Mujhe Bhi Badan Me Chot Legi Thi." As a result of which he was not able to drive by-cycle properly. His Theta business was also hampered and he sustained pecuniary loss accordingly. 4. We find that claimant brought on record one prescription of Dr. S.N. Chowdhury which was marked as Exhibit 2 as also some of cash memos of medicine, which were marked as Exhibit 4 series. We perused the aforesaid documents as also the X-ray receipts and find that it was not established that the claimant had sustained injury on a particular part of the body, namely the right leg as alleged in the claim application, which was also contradicted in his deposition as A.W. 1 as well as from the documents, Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 series. 5. However, the Presiding Officer of the tribunal in the impugned judgment in absence of any cogent evidence, specially the evidence of Dr. S.N. Choudhary, who had treated the claimant and/or any certificate granted by him in respect of the nature of injury sustained by him, including the percentage of disability, permanent, temporary or partial wrongly & without any basis assessed the amount of compensation payable to him under the Act. 6. The claimant was required to bring on record the evidence to prove the accident, the injury sustained and the expenses which he had to incur for treatment of the said injury. 7. We, therefore, find that the accident claims tribunal committed an error in granting a lump sum amount of Rs.65,000/to be paid as compensation to the claimant under the Act, is absence of any oral/ documentary evidence in support of his claim. 8. 7. We, therefore, find that the accident claims tribunal committed an error in granting a lump sum amount of Rs.65,000/to be paid as compensation to the claimant under the Act, is absence of any oral/ documentary evidence in support of his claim. 8. The impugned judgment/award is set aside accordingly and the claim application tiled by the claimant-respondent stands dismissed. 9. In the result, this appeal is allowed, but without costs. 10. Consequently, the statutory amount deposited vide Challan No. J-153 dated 30.3.2001 in this appeal under proviso to section 173 of the Act by the appellant is permitted to be withdrawn by it on proper verification and in accordance with law. Let the lower court records be sent down.