THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.732 of 2003 Date : 13-08-2010 Between : Totakuri Madhi @ Madhusudhan .. Appellant and Middepaka Peddulu @ Yakaiah and two others .. Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.732 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the claimant assailing the orders in O.P.No.975 of 1999, dated 07-10-2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal. The claimant filed the O.P. seeking a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- on the ground that while he was traveling in an auto trolley bearing registration No.AP 36 T 9267, a tractor bearing registration No.AP 20-T-532- 84 dashed against the trolley resulting in injuries. Respondent No.1 (driver of the tractor) and respondent No.2 (owner of tractor) remained ex parte. The respondent No.3 (Insurance Company) contested the claim. The Tribunal formulated the issues whether accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the aforesaid tractor by its driver and whether the claimant was entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and by whom payable. Claimant examined himself as P.W.1 and also examined a Doctor (description of the Doctor is not disclosed) through an Advocate Commissioner. Exs.A1 to A6 were also marked on behalf of the claimant. The respondent No.3 (Insurance Company) did not examine any witness but filed Insurance Policy as Ex.B1. The Tribunal, on a consideration of evidence on the issue relating to rash and negligence, rightly held that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. However, on the question of the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal allowed the claim to the extent of a sum of Rs.6,500/- only. It is to be noted that in order to prove the gravity of the nature of the injuries suffered, the claimant examined the Doctor as P.W.2 through an Advocate Commissioner. The Tribunal did not advert to the evidence of the Doctor at all. There is no reference nor discussion about the evidence of P.W.2, without which the conclusion drawn to the quantum of amount as awarded cannot be said to be proper. Non-consideration of the medical evidence on the nature of injuries is a serious flaw. The order impugned to the extent relating to issues 2 and 3 is not sustainable and requires reconsideration. As a result, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remanded for reconsideration on issues 2 and 3 alone. The Tribunal is requested to consider the matter and dispose of the same as early as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Appeal is allowed as indicated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 13th August, 2010. skmr