THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 683 OF 2006 Dated: 17.02.2011 Between: Mantu Maisaiah ... APPELLANT AND Mr V.Laxmaiah and another ... RESPONDENTS THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED MACMA No. 683 OF 2006 JUDGMENT: This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) is directed against the order and decree, dated 23.09.2005 in O.P No. 94 of 2003 on the file of the XI Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Court, Hyderabad, The case of the claimant in the O.P. before the Tribunal, in brief, is that on 26-10-2002 at about 2:30 P.M., while the claimant was proceeding on his scooter and when he reached near Kanajigudamm, a tractor bearing No.AP-24-T-3260 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner in high speed, dashed the scooter. Due to which he fell down and received grievous injuries and sustained permanent disability and incurred huge expenditure for treatment. Prior to the accident, the claimant was earning Rs.5000/- per month by doing milk business. Thus, the claimant claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the grievous injuries sustained by him in the accident. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2, United India Insurance Company Limited, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal for trial: “1. Whether the accident in question took place on 26.10.2002 due to rash and negligent driving of the tractor No.AP-24-T-3260 by its driver? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? To substantiate his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and examined the Doctor who treated him as P.W.2 and also examined one Mr.Venkatesh as P.W.3 and got marked Exs.P-1 to P- 15. On behalf of respondent No.2-Insurance Company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal on adjudication of the matter granted compensation of Rs.1,34,000/- under all heads. When the appeal is taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the claimant contended that the claimant is entitled more amount than what was granted by the Tribunal. He further contended that the Tribunal ought to have awarded the medical expenses of Rs.42,266/- instead of Rs.30,000/- by considering the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2- Insurance Company contended that the claim petition was filed after a gap of eight years from the date of accident; that without considering the same the Tribunal granted compensation and hence, there are no grounds to enhance the compensation. Considering the rival submissions of both the parties and the grounds of appeal, this Court is of the view that the claimant is entitled to receive more compensation and for that purpose he has to be given an opportunity. In the circumstances, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the claimant to seek appropriate amendment as per law. On such an amendment petition, being filed by the claimant, the Tribunal shall consider and dispose of the same as per law including the Original Petition. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J FEBRUARY 17, 2011 YVL/KK