Judgment : 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal arises out of award dated 11.11.2002 in O.P.No.587 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Sessions Judge), Nizamabad, (for short, “the Tribunal”). While this appeal is filed by the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, the respondent-claimant has filed the cross-objections seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in the O.P. The claimant, while traveling in bus bearing No.AP 10Z 11 belonging to the respondents from Armoor towards Nizamabad on 04.06.1999, sustained injuries allegedly due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus. The claimant has therefore filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. In support of his claim, he has examined himself as PW.1 and got Exs.A1 to A4 marked. Ex.A1 is the FIR, Ex.A2 is the outpatient ticket, Ex.A3 is the copy of the medical certificate and Ex.A4 comprises copies of medical bills. The Tribunal, on finding that the claimant has sustained injuries on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the bus, placed reliance on Ex.A3 – out-patient ticket and held that the claimant has sustained fracture to his fourth and fifth ribs and also received injuries on both knees and on occipital region. While awarding Rs.50,000/- towards the alleged fractures sustained by the claimant, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.10,000/- towards medicines and extra nourishment and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- towards past and future pain and suffering. Thus, in all, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.65,000/- as compensation. 3. While the respondents-appellants have filed the above appeal, the claimant-respondent has filed the cross-objections, as noted above. 4. At the hearing, Sri Anand Sinde representing Sri C. Sunil Kumar Reddy, learned Standing counsel for the respondents – appellants in the appeal, submitted that the Tribunal has committed a serious error in placing reliance on Ex.A3, a purported medical certificate issued by a Doctor, without the claimant examining him. 5. The fact that the Doctor, who is stated to have issued the medical certificate, has not been examined is not in dispute. The law is well settled that the medical evidence produced by the claimant, without examining the Doctor, cannot be given any weight (United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Mohd. Khaj Rasool Sayyed @ Mohd. 5. The fact that the Doctor, who is stated to have issued the medical certificate, has not been examined is not in dispute. The law is well settled that the medical evidence produced by the claimant, without examining the Doctor, cannot be given any weight (United India Insurance Co., Ltd., Hyderabad vs. Mohd. Khaj Rasool Sayyed @ Mohd. Khaja Main Shaik and another ( 2003 (5) ALD 162 ) and Rajesh Kumar @ Raju vs. Yudhvir Singh and another ( (2008) 7 SCC 305 )). Therefore, in my opinion, the Tribunal ought not to have placed reliance on Ex.A3 medical certificate. If the said document is discarded, the only other evidence showing that the claimant was an in-patient from 04.06.1999 to 09.06.1999 is Ex.A2, an out-patient ticket issued by the A.P. Vaidya Vidhan Parishad. From this document, it is reasonable to presume that the claimant has received injuries, which may vary between simple and moderate requiring his admission in the hospital for about 5 to 6 days. 6. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that interests of justice would be met if the award of the Tribunal is modified by limiting the liability of the respondents to 50% of the amount awarded and deposited by the respondents in pursuance of interim order dated 25.06.2003. 7. Subject to the above modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed and the cross-objections are rejected.