THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1182 of 2003 Date: 26.08.2010 Between: T. Venugopal Rao … Appellant and G. Malla Reddy and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1182 of 2003 ORAL JUDGMENT: Heard both sides. 2. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 07.01.2002, in M.V.O.P.No.67 of 1997, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding a sum of Rs.1,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by the claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 8.2.1994, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of driver of the scooter, bearing No.AP-23- 5630, the present civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the claimant. 3. The appellant herein is the claimant, first respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle and the second respondent is its insurer. 4. This is a case of injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident. The particulars regarding the method and manner in which the accident had occurred and the aspect of negligence are not referred to since already on record. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.1,000/- towards compensation. Hence the present appeal. 5. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and justified. 6. Admittedly, due to the accident, the claimant suffered fracture of right ankle and other injuries all over the body. Inspite of the assertion by the claimant about the injuries suffered by him, the same were not established by examining any witness. It is the case of the claimant that he received fracture of right ankle. He was admitted in Hospital and was operated and also took treatment for one week. Even after discharge, he took treatment and was bed-ridden for three months. He was operated again for removing the screws fitted to his right ankle and spent Rs.20,000/- for his treatment. But, the Tribunal had pointed out that in order to establish the injuries, as stated by the claimant and also as per the medical bills, nobody was examined. Examination of the doctor, in such cases, is essential. When no doctor or any other competent person from the hospital authorities was examined, it is hard to believe that the injuries sustained by the claimant are very serious in nature. Therefore, the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal is absolutely right. 7. However, Ex.A-4 is the disability certificate issued by the hospital authorities and Ex.A-6 is the medical bills showing the expenditure incurred by the claimant towards treatment to a tune of Rs.18,200/-. Though, no doctor was examined in order to substantiate the same, however, having regard to the facts and circumstances, particularly in view of the fact that the claimant suffered some injuries and incurred a sum of Rs.18,200/- towards treatment, I feel it expedient to award the said amount of Rs.18,200/- towards compensation on all counts. 8. Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the total amount of compensation from Rs.1,000/- to Rs.18,200/- (Rupees eighteen thousand two hundred only). The additional amount of Rs.17,200/- (Rupees seventeen thousand two hundred only) shall carry interest at 7.5 per cent per annum from the date of filing of the O.P. before the Tribunal, till realization. In all other aspects, the order passed by the Tribunal shall remain unaltered. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 26.08.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1182 of 2003 26.08.2010 (Msr)