THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.954 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 16-10-2007, in M.V.O.P.No.747 of 2005 on the file of the learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Guntur, wherein the said application filed by the respondents herein for compensation, was allowed in part awarding Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the record. 3. Appellant filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injury sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 20.04.2005. According to the claimant, on that day, he was proceeding with his new auto from Hyderabad to Guntur and at Rallavagu thanda a lorry bearing No.AP-24V-1125 was stationed in the middle of the road, without any proper care and caution, as a result of which the auto hit the lorry resulting in multiple injuries to the appellant. A case in Cr.No.45 of 2005 was registered against the driver of the lorry by the police, Wadapalli police station. According to the appellant, he was an auto driver earning Rs.4000/- per month. He further pleaded that he suffered fracture injuries and also a crush injury to the left knee and was shifted to Government hospital, Miryalaguda. 1st respondent-owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay compensation. 4. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A5 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence is adduced by the respondents. Ex.X1-case sheet was marked. 5 On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent parking of the lorry in the middle of the road, without putting the parking lights and also due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the appellant, who was driving the new auto, and apportioned the liability equally. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest @ 7.5% p.a. Not satisfied with the same, claimant filed the present appeal seeking enhancement. 6. The finding that the accident occurred due to the fault of both the drivers is not challenged. Though the Tribunal apportioned the liability equally among the two drivers, the award, however, was passed for the entire sum of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the appellant, without making deduction towards his half share of the liability. The insurer has not preferred any appeal questioning the same. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that no amount was awarded towards permanent disability though the claimant suffered fracture of wrist, which resulted in dropping of the wrist. Though P.W.2- doctor, who treated the injured at Amaravathi hospital, testified that there is radial nerve paralysis resulting in dropping of the wrist and the same amounts to 20% disability, admittedly no certificate of disability issued by any competent authority or medical Board is filed. In the absence of any such certificate, the plea of the appellant that there is a permanent disability of 20% cannot be countenanced merely on the basis of the oral evidence of P.W.2. In fact, the wound certificate-Ex.A2 would disclose that there is only one crush injury of elbow. Though P.W.2 has stated that there are three fracture injuries, there is no evidence in support of the same. The claimant was in hospital as inpatient for one week from 21.04.2005 to 28.04.2005. Though he claims to have undergone surgery for removal of tooth, no evidence is forthcoming. The evidence on record clearly discloses that the claimant sustained crush injury of knee and he was in hospital for one week. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.25,000/- as compensation for the crush injury; Rs.13,900/- towards medical expenses covered by the bills-Exs.A4 and A5; Rs.1100/- towards transportation charges; Rs.8000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.2000/- towards extra nourishment and attendant charges. As there is no evidence in proof of the claim of permanent disability and loss of earning capacity resulting therefrom, the Tribunal has rightly not awarded any amount in that regard. 8. In the circumstances, having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained and brief period of hospitalization of the claimant and also considering the fact that the Tribunal has not made any deduction towards liability of the claimant arising out of the contributory negligence, it is considered that the amount of Rs.50,000/- awarded is just and reasonable and the same does not call for any enhancement. 9. In the result, appeal is dismissed. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 23rd August, 2011 Tsy