HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2724 of 2007 JUDGMENT: The claimant is the appellant. He was involved in a road accident on 23.12.2000 at about 4.20 P.M. when auto bearing No.AP 9V 4438 came in opposite direction and dashed against his motor cycle at AOC Cross Roads. He claimed compensation by filing O.P.No.2730 of 2003 in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The lower Tribunal while holding that auto was responsible for this accident, awarded compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the claimant as against its owner and insurer. Break-ups of compensation are Rs.5,000/- towards shock, pain and loss of amenities of life, Rs.15,000/- for lacerated wound on frontal area associated with fracture of temporal bone, Rs.5,000/- for medical and other incidental expenses during the period of treatment of one month and Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment, transport etc., In the accident, the claimant sustained a sutured lacerated wound on frontal area. The claimant examined himself as PW.1 in the lower Tribunal and filed Ex.A.2 copy of wound certificate. Apart from that, the claimant also filed Ex.A.4, which consists of medical bills and discharge card. It is contended by the appellant’s counsel that medical bills are to the extent of Rs.40,000/- and that the lower Tribunal did not consider the same and therefore it is a fit case for remanding the matter to the lower Tribunal for fresh consideration after giving opportunity to the claimant to lead further medical evidence in support thereof. The lower Tribunal did not place any reliance on medical bills covered by Ex.A.4 because no doctor from Vijaya Health Care, Secunderabad, was examined. Even though Government Medical Officer was not examined, the lower Tribunal placed reliance on Ex.A.2 wound certificate in order to find out injuries sustained by the claimant. It is stated by the petitioner’s counsel that though his counter part in the lower Tribunal filed petition for appointment of Advocate- Commissioner for examining doctors, the lower Tribunal dismissed the said petition. It is not known on what grounds the said petition was dismissed and at which stage the said petition was filed by the claimant. He could have questioned the said order by filing an appeal or revision. Instead, he was satisfied with the order passed by the lower Tribunal on that petition and had chosen to invite the award on merits from the lower Tribunal. Nothing prevented the claimant to examine the doctor from Vijaya Health Care, Secunderabad, in Court after the lower Tribunal dismissed his petition for appointment of Advocate-Commissioner to examine the doctor. Therefore, I do not find any valid or legal reasons to remand the matter to the lower Tribunal for giving further opportunity to the claimant to lead evidence. Sufficient opportunity was given by the lower Tribunal to the claimant to lead his evidence. Having regard to the nature of injury sustained by the claimant/respondent, amount of compensation awarded by the lower Tribunal under different heads is reasonable, just and appropriate. In the result, the appeal is dismissed with costs. ________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J 22nd November, 2010. PNV