JUDGMENT Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, J. - The present Motor accidents Civil Miscellaneous appeal is preferred by the appellant herein against Order dated 21.04.2011 passed in M.V.O.P. No.525/2008 on the file of the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-IX additional District Judge (FTC), Machilipatnam, Krishna District. 2. Heard. The case of the claimant herein is that the respondent herein drove the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and dashed the appellant /claim petitioner herein from the backside on 15.07.2007, due to which he has sustained grievous injuries. Therefore, he prayed to award compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 3. The appellant herein is examined as PW1 and not examined any other witnesses. as per the testimony of the appellant/claim petitioner herein he has sustained grievous injuries and multiple injuries all over the body. according to him, he took medical treatment in the Government Hospital at Machilipatnam as an inpatient. He further stated that he joined in Pinnamaneni Siddartha Hospital, Chinnaoutupalli for better treatment. 4. The petitioner used to earn Rs.200/- per day by doing painting work. He was hale and healthy on the date of accident. The appellant/claim petitioner herein filed F.I.R. which is marked as Ex.a1, Wound Certificate as Ex. a-2, Charge-sheet as Ex.a-3, Medical Bills as Ex.a-4, Policy Cover Note as Ex.a5, M.V. Inspector's Report as Ex.a-6 and Certificate of registration of the crime vehicle as Ex.a7. 5. The Bantumilli police registered the F.I.R. and filed Charge sheet for the offence under Section 337 of I.P.C. against driver of the vehicle. as per the F.I.R. and Charge sheet, the Petitioner has not sustained any injury. The claims tribunal after considering the documentary evidence as well as oral evidence granted compensation of Rs.2,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum on the said amount from the date of the petition till the date of realization. The Claims Tribunal while allowing M.V.O.P. partly has disbelieved the exhibits filed by the appellant/claim petitioner herein on the ground that the author of the documents was not examined. The Tribunal has granted Rs.2,000/- towards the injury as it is not grievous injury and it is only swelling of his right thigh. 6. Hence, I found no reasons to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal as there is no evidence adduced by the appellant/claim petitioner herein regarding injury and loss of income. 7. accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any stands closed.