IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY THE TWENTYSECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CMA.No. 3509 OF 2002 Between: P. Muralidhar Reddy … Appellant V/s. Vijaya Kumar & Anr. … Respondents Counsel for the Appellant : Smt. R. Pramada Counsel for the Respondents : Sri N.S. Bhakar Rao The Court made the following : (Judgment follows 2nd page) THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA CMA.NO. 3509 OF 2002. J U D G M E N T : The learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company is present and reported ready. The counsel for the appellant is not present and no representation on his behalf. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the second respondent- Insurance Company. Since there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, it is thought appropriate to dispose of the appeal on merits. 3. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by claimant against the award and decree dated 8-4-2002 passed in OP.No. 14 of 1999 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. 4. The appellant herein is the injured claim petitioner. The claim-petition averments are that on 19-6-1998 at about 01:30 p.m., while the petitioner along with his wife was proceeding on his scooter near Mylaram village of Patancheru the offending car bearing Regdn.No. AP-13B-3279 being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver dashed against the scooter, as a result, both of them fell down and sustained injuries. That the petitioner suffered fracture of left leg and the disability on account of the same was fixed at 45% by the doctor. The petitioner therefore claimed Rs.1,00,000/-. However, the Claims Tribunal after taking into consideration the nature of injuries suffered by him and the fact that the doctor who estimated and issued the disability certificates Exs.A7 and A8 was not examined, awarded a total compensation of Rs.42,000/- (Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.2000/- towards transport expenses, Rs.4000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.1000/- for damages to clothes) with interest @ 9% per annum. 5. The learned counsel for the second respondent-Insurance Company contends that Exs.A7 and A8 were issued by a private medical practitioner and they were not issued by Medical Board as required by law. Moreover, the doctor who issued the disability certificate was not examined in this case instead another private doctor was examined who had not treated him. Therefore, he submits that the Claims Tribunal was right in not accepting Exs.A7 and A8. In support of his contention, he relied on the decision reported in Ramakrishna Goyal V/s. SE Mech. & Ors[1], wherein it is held to the effect that disability certificate obtained from a private doctor cannot be accepted. He also relied on another decision in MUNNAGALA SRINIVAS RAO AND ORS. V/s. S. RAJENDRA SINGH AND ORS [2], wherein it is held to the effect that the doctor who treated the injured was not examined and no reliance can be placed on disability certificate issued by him. 6. In the facts and circumstances of the case and also having regard to the decisions referred to hereinabove, this Court is of the view that the Claims Tribunal has not committed any error or irregularity while passing the impugned award calling interference from this Court except in awarding interest @ 9% per annum, which is to be reduced to 6% and the same has been reduced in view of the decision of the Supreme Court reported in Sarla Varma & Ors. V/s. Delhi Transport Corporation & Anr.[3] 7. With the said modification of interest, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No costs. _____________________ JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA 22/07/2010 I s L THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CMA.NO. 3509 OF 2002 22-07-2010 I s L . THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE B.N. RAO NALLA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL NO.3509 OF 2002 Circulation No. 63 Date:22-7-2010 Computer No.43 Court Master: I s L [1] ) 2009 ACJ-1070 [2] ) 2009 (5) ALT-193 [3] ) 2009 ACJ-1298