THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1573 of 2002 J U D G M E N T: This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-claimant, aggrieved by the order and decree dated 29.10.2001 passed in O.P.No.803 of 1995 by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (District Judge) at Nizamabad filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs. 75,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in a motor accident. The facts, in brief, are as follows. On 06.03.1995, at about 01.00 a.m., while the appellant and sixty others were travelling in a bus bearing No. AP 25T 769 belonging to the 1st respondent, to go to pilgrimage, en route, near Vellur Village in Medak District, the driver of the bus drove the same in a rash and negligent manner at a high speed and dashed a road side tree, as a result, the appellant and others sustained injuries. According to the appellant-claimant, as on the date of accident, she was aged about 55 years and had been earning Rs.500/- p.m. as an agricultural labourer. She complains that on account of the accident, she sustained grievous injuries and lost her earning capacity. Therefore, she claimed Rs.75,000/- as compensation towards the loss of earnings and the medical expenditure incurred by her. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. In the counter filed before the Tribunal, the 2nd respondent, while admitting the existence of the policy as on the date of accident, contended that the driver, who drove the bus at that relevant point of time, has no valid licence. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial. (1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents? (3) To what relief? During the course of trial, the claimant examined herself as P.W.1 and also examined P.W.2 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A5. No oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the contesting respondent, but however, the documents Ex.B1, xerox copy of Insurance policy and Ex.B2, xerox copy of final report were marked. The Tribunal, after careful consideration of the entire material available on record, both oral and documentary, concluded that it is just and reasonable to award compensation at Rs.500/- under the head of violent shock from the date of petition to the date of realization, with 9% interest thereon and proportionate costs. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent. A perusal of the order under appeal prima facie shows that the appellant-claimant did not examine any doctor, in order to prove the injuries sustained by her in the accident. The claim of the appellant before the Tribunal was for Rs.75,000/-, however, the Tribunal, awarded Rs.500/-. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the opinion that it is just and appropriate if an opportunity is given to the claimant, to adduce evidence in support of the injuries sustained by her and the treatment underwent in that regard. Therefore, the order, dated 29.10.2001 passed in O.P.No. 803 of 1995 on the file of the District Judge-cum-Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for its consideration afresh. The Tribunal is directed to dispose of the O.P., within a period of three months from today, after giving opportunity to both the parties to adduce evidence in support of their pleas. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. 8th July 2010 ksld THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1943 of 2004 17th June 2010 CVRK