Judgment : The claimant injured of O.P.No.2025 of 2002 filed against the owner and insurer of the crime auto AP 25 E 6302 with a claim of Rs.3,50,000/-, having been aggrieved by the award granting compensation of Rs.18,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum dated 02.12.2006, impugning the same preferred the appeal and the contentions in the grounds of appeal that the learned Chairman of the Tribunal gravely erred in not considering the factum of grievous injuries sustained by the claimant gives permanent disability that was deposed by private doctor P.W.2 and thereby could have adopted multiplier method and the amount of compensation granted is utterly low, hence to allow the appeal as prayed for in the claim petition by granting said compensation. It is the contention of the second respondent-insurer, for first respondent served not put forth appearance, that this case is outcome of exorbitant claim by setting up an accident and injuries with no correlation to the FIR, wound certificate and evidence of P.W.2 a different doctor though Ex.A3 wound certificate speaks treated by Government Doctor hence the Tribunal ought to have dismissed the entire claim and but for no cross-objections not to interfere, the appeal deserves dismissal with costs. Perused the material on record. The parties are being referred to as arrayed before the Tribunal for the sake of convenience in the appeal. Now, the points that arise for consideration in this appeal are: 1. Whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal of Rs.18,000/- is utterly low and requires enhancement and if so what is just compensation in the factual matrix that is entitled by the claimant-appellant? 2. To what result? Point No.1: As per Ex.A1 FIR set the law in motion issued by the claimant injured at about 5.00 p.m. on 17.06.2002 that on that day at about 11.00 a.m. while he was proceeding from his field on his cycle, the crime tractor of first respondent AP 25 E 6302 from behind while driving in rash and negligent manner dashed against his cycle as a result he sustained fracture of right leg and fracture on right shoulder. Hence to take action against the said driver of the tractor Latchanna. Hence to take action against the said driver of the tractor Latchanna. From the very FIR, the claim is some how appears speculative undoubtedly it is for the reason that had there been a real fracture of the left shoulder and at the accident at 11.00 a.m., his preparing and signing the report cannot be believed at about 4 or 5.00 p.m. It is not even statement reduced to writing from hospital intimation by police. As can be seen from the endorsement thereon of report presented was registered. No doubt, the police after investigation filed Ex.A2 charge sheet against the driver of the crime tractor. There is no mention of any damage to the cycle. Charge sheet also speaks as if injuries to right leg and right shoulder. So mechanically even the charge sheet filed after obtaining Ex.A3 wound certificate issued by Government Hospital duty doctor T.Narsinga Rao, which speaks there is a grievous injury of right leg both bones fracture and another simple head injury which is an abrasion only, there is no reference of any injury to right shoulder. Undisputedly the policy covers the risk issued by the second respondent insurer for the first respondent’s crime tractor. P.W.2 Dr.Naidu Srinivasa Rao claims to be issued a wound certificate from his private clinic Sri Aditya Orthopedic Nursing Home, Nizamabad, showing the claimant was admitted on 17.06.2002 and operated on that day and discharged on 26.06.2002 for the fracture of tibia and nailing done. The certificate no where mentions date, when it was issued. But on the reverse side of the said certificate marked as Ex.A5, there was prescription from attendance on 26.07.2002 and 30.08.2002. On both dates it was mentioned as fracture uniting. The Government Hospital certificate Ex.A3 as referred supra speaks the same was issued on 17.06.2002 after the injured himself came and admitted in the hospital and not brought by the police even and the time is in the afternoon. When such is the case, there is no possibility for P.W.2 to say that on the same day the appellant-claimant was admitted again in the private hospital and operated and treated as in-patient. So, P.W.2’s evidence is nothing but false. When such is the case, there is no possibility for P.W.2 to say that on the same day the appellant-claimant was admitted again in the private hospital and operated and treated as in-patient. So, P.W.2’s evidence is nothing but false. It is unknown being a medical practitioner, how such a certificate is issued without basis as if the injured-appellant was admitted in the private hospital of him and treated as in-patient though the injured was admitted in the Government Hospital where if X-ray found fracture of both bones and of P.W.2 stated the fracture on one bone is not even correlating. No doubt as can be seen from the above, the claim is from the beginning with exaggerations as if there was a shoulder fracture and right leg fracture and multiple injuries as per FIR and the same blindly reflected in the charge sheet without referring to Ex.A3 wound certificate Government Doctor speaks of compound fracture to right leg and with other abrasion over forehead, simple. Thus, the compensation to be awarded is only for the compound fracture of both bones of right leg and for the simple abrasion over forehead as described in Ex.A3 wound certificate. The accident was of the year 2002 as detailed supra. Thus, a compensation of Rs.20,000/- for the compound fracture and an amount of Rs.2,000/- for the simple injury and an amount of Rs.8,000/- towards loss of earnings, medical expenses, treatment and attendant charges and transport charges to make it Rs.30,000/- is just compensation to enhance from Rs.18,000/-awarded by the Tribunal with interest at 7.5% per annum. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.18,000/- to Rs.30,000/-.There is no order as to costs in this appeal.