JUDGMENT : S.R. Singharavelu, J. - Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. is the Appellant. Being aggrieved by the award dated 26.4.2001 for a sum of Rs. 3,20,000/- passed by the learned Addl. District Judge- cum-Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nabarangpur in a case of injury this appeal was preferred. 2. So far as the accident is concerned, there is no dispute. The dispute is only in regard to the quantum of Rs. 3,20,000/-, that is the award. 3. In the award the various heads are mentioned as follows: Rs. 2,00,000/- for loss of earning and disappointment; Rs. 50,000/- for pain, suffering, loss of amenities, loss of expectation of life, frustration and mental stress etc.; Rs. 65,000/- for cost of the treatment and for the travel of the patient from the accident spot to Vizag and reverse side also; and Rs. 5,000/- towards expenditure of the attendant. 4. Leaving this Rs. 50,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs. 5,000/- towards expenditure on attendance serious objection was raised upon granting Rs. 2,00,000/- towards loss of earning, disappointment and Rs. 65,000/- for cost of the treatment and for travel of the patient. 5. As a matter of fact, the cost of the treatment and the loss of earning mentioned above touch a common point, namely, nature of injury regarding which there is lot of cloud in the case. 6. Since I propose to remand the matter for examination of the Doctor concerned, I do not deal with the other aspects of the case. It is suffice to say that the cloud around the nature of the injury is raised due to two vital documents, which are mutually contradictory. They are Exts. 4 and 7. While Ext. 4 is the injury report of the first medical attendant who happens to be a government medical officer where the injury was only bruise 2" x 1" on the spinal cord and Anr. injury upon sporadic aspect. But Ext. 7 is a discharge certificate issued by a private hospital from which none was subjected to cross-examination. It is seen that in the hospital the claimant took treatment as in patient between 13.7.1999 to 5.8.1999 as well as between 7.9.1999 to 10.9.1999. 7. What the discharge certificate shows is that "Old case of Traumatic paraplegia due to wedge compression fracture D12 with retention of urine; there was total paralysis with loss of sensation upto D12 level. 8. It is seen that in the hospital the claimant took treatment as in patient between 13.7.1999 to 5.8.1999 as well as between 7.9.1999 to 10.9.1999. 7. What the discharge certificate shows is that "Old case of Traumatic paraplegia due to wedge compression fracture D12 with retention of urine; there was total paralysis with loss of sensation upto D12 level. 8. In order to make out a case of fracture there should be radiology report. Similarly, in order to show the compression of the spinal cord it has to be specifically located in scientific term. Again for showing loss of sensation also there should have been orthopedic sturdy, the report of which was not filed. Therefore, it is very much necessary to subject to examination of the Doctor, who had treated the patient in order to arrive at a correct conclusion of the nature of the injury. This expectation gains momentum when once I saw the document Ext. 4 describing the injury as mere bruise upon the spinal cord and sporadic region. I do not also want that the actual deserving patient is deprived of his claims. At the same time, I have no inclination to agree with the Tribunal in awarding a huge sum without getting subjective satisfaction. That satisfaction wholly depends on the evidence of the private Doctor who issued Ext. 7. Without saying anything on this aspect and also upon loss of income I remand this matter for fresh disposal by the Tribunal in accordance with law within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the records in the light of the observations made above. 9. The Misc. Appeal is disposed of. Final Result : Dismissed