ELIPE DHARMA RAO, J. ( 1 ) THIS Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the Award, passed in m. V. OP. No. 370 of 2002, dated 29-06-2004, on the file of the District Judge-cum-Chairman, motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, chittoor. ( 2 ) THE brief facts, which are necessary to dispose of this appeal, are that on 26-02-2002 at about 9. 30 a. m. , while the appellant-claimant was going on his cycle on chittoor-Puttur road and when he reached in front of the Government ITI main gate, a lorry bearing No. AAC 5330 came behind him, being driven by its driver rashly and negligently and dashed the claimant, as a result of which, the claimant fell down on the left side of the road and sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to the government Hospital, Chittoor, thereafter, he was shifted to CMC hospital, Vellore, wherein he was treated as in-patient for a week and later he was treated as out-patient. Therefore, the claimant made a claim under section 166 of the Act before the Tribunal claiming a total compensation of rs. 2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the road accident. ( 3 ) THE 1st respondent remained ex parte, while the 2nd respondent denied the material allegations of the claimant by filing the written statement. The Court below, however, basing on the pleadings of the respective parties, framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the 1st respondent s lorry or the rash and negligent cycling by the petitioner or both? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation for his injuries and if so, to what extent and from whom ? (3) To what relief ? ( 4 ) TO prove the claim on behalf of the claimant, the claimant examined himself as p. W. 1 and examined another eye witness as pw. 2, and marked Exs. A-1 to A-9. On the other hand, the contesting 2nd respondent did not examine any witness, but marked ex. B-1-the insurance policy of the crime vehicle. ( 5 ) BY the impugned order, the Court below after considering the material available on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. A-1 to A-9. On the other hand, the contesting 2nd respondent did not examine any witness, but marked ex. B-1-the insurance policy of the crime vehicle. ( 5 ) BY the impugned order, the Court below after considering the material available on record held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. Then proceeding to assess the compensation, the Tribunal examined the claim on account of pain and suffering, medicines and treatment, and present value of the future loss, and awarded compensation of Rs. 60,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant has preferred this Civil miscellaneous Appeal. ( 6 ) HEARD. There is no dispute with regard to the age, date and nature of accident. The only dispute is with regard to the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. ( 7 ) 1 have gone through the award passed by the Tribunal and the material placed on record. Prima facie, I am of the opinion that the leaned Judge has not properly considered the issues raised in the O. P. for award of compensation. A perusal of the award discloses that the learned Judge has simply relied on Ex. A-6, the wound certificate issued by the CMC Hospital and ex. A-3, the wound certificate issued by the authorities of the Government Hospital, chittoor, and awarded the compensation without there being any supporting oral evidence from the doctor, who issued the said certificates. To prove the injuries suffered by the claimant, the claimant has not chosen to examine the doctor, who treated him. The Tribunal has taken the injuries suffered by the claimant as simple and awarded the compensation. Further, without fixing the income of the claimant, the learned Judge awarded lumpsum compensation of Rs. 22,000/- towards present value of the future loss, no reasons were given as to how he has arrived at that figure. More over, the medical bills presented by the claimant are not supported by any oral evidence of the doctor, who issued the same. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in State of haryana v. Jasbir Kaur held that grant of compensation is not a bounty. More over, the medical bills presented by the claimant are not supported by any oral evidence of the doctor, who issued the same. ( 8 ) THE Supreme Court in State of haryana v. Jasbir Kaur held that grant of compensation is not a bounty. The Tribunal, which is entrusted with the said work, has to consider the material in the proper perspective and pass an award of just compensation. Further, in this case, the learned Judge granted the compensation for the injuries suffered by the claimant without applying the multiplier method as held by the supreme Court in Deepal Girishbhai Soni v. United Insurance Company Limited, baroda. ( 9 ) UNDER these circumstances, I am of the opinion that the matter needs reconsideration by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the award of the Tribunal dated 29-06-2004, is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for re-consideration. The claimant is entitled to adduce further evidence to support his claim, if he is so advised. The learned Judge is directed to dispose of the matter, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after affording opportunity to both the parties. ( 10 ) THE Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs