RAFIQ, J.—This appeal has been preferred by the claimant challenging the award dated 10/4/2012, whereby the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur City, Jaipur has passed the award for a sum of Rs.3,83,913/- reducing Rs.72,000/- from Rs.4,55,913/-, which was previously awarded by the Tribunal vide award dated 31/10/2000. 2. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in assailing the award dated 10/4/2012 is that previously, he filed claim petition under Sections 140/166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for the permanent disability of 51.47% sustained by him in a road accident involving the vehicle insured with the respondent insurance company. Learned Tribunal awarded Rs.4,55,913/- as compensation vide order dated 31/10/2000, which was challenged by the respondent insurance company by filing appeal before this Court being S.B. Civil Misc.Appeal No.743/2001. This Court while setting aside the award dated 31/10/2000, remanded the matter back to the Tribunal vide order dated 6/9/2011 (Ann.2) for deciding the claim petition afresh on Issues No.1 and 3 and parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12/3/2012. Tribunal again decided the claim petition particularly on Issues No.1 and 3 and passed the award afresh after hearing the parties afresh on 10/4/2012 however, this time, reduced the amount of compensation from Rs.4,55,913/- to Rs.3,83,913/-. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the Tribunal has mechanically reduced amount of Rs.72,000/- from the previously amount of compensation of Rs.4,55,913/-, which was previously considered by the Tribunal at @Rs.1500/- per month, which the injured-appellant used to pay to Shri Mahendra-driver of the autorickshaw every day for bringing him from home to bank and bank to home for 4 years applying the formula of – 1500x12x4=72000. 3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the appellant and perusing the impugned award, I find that Tribunal while passing the award dated 31/10/2000 merely relied on the oral testimony of appellant that he used to pay Rs.1500/- per month to Mahendra-driver of the autorickshaw every day for bringing him from home to bank and bank to home for four years, whereas the appellant did not at all submit any documentary evidence on record in this regard before the Tribunal. Neither Mahendra was before the Tribunal nor did the appellant produce any receipt certifying payment of Rs.1500/- per month being paid by the appellant to Mahendra. Neither Mahendra was before the Tribunal nor did the appellant produce any receipt certifying payment of Rs.1500/- per month being paid by the appellant to Mahendra. But this time, the Tribunal rectified this mistake while passing the award 10/4/2012 thereby discarding the oral testimony of the appellant in regard to payment of Rs.1500/- per month to Mahendra for want of his production in the witness box and submitting the receipts against the said payment of four years. Tribunal this time rightly deducted Rs.72,000/- earlier incorrectly awarded to the appellant applying the formula of 1500x12x4=72000, which was not sustainable in the absence of any documentary evidence i.e. receipts of the driver of autorickshaw, which mistake was otherwise liable to be rectified in the interest of justice. Learned Tribunal did not commit therefore any error in modifying its earlier award dated 31/10/2000, vide the impugned subsequent award dated 10/4/2012. 4. I do not find any error in the impugned award dated 10/4/2012 so as to interfere therewith. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.