HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2474 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner against the order in O.P.No.238 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge at Nizamabad, questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. A claim was made for a sum of Rs.1,40,000/- for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident. 3. According to the case of the petitioner, on 05.05.1999 when the petitioner was driving the lorry bearing No.AP 9 U 2064 and reached at Gannaram village sivar, another lorry bearing No.AP 22T 202 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against his lorry, as a result he received multiple injuries and spent money for treatment. The 1st respondent is owner and the 2nd respondent is insurer of the offending lorry. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the averments in the petition and putting the petitioner to strict proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, nature of injuries received by the petitioner and also the expenditure incurred by him. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has dismissed the claim, having held that the petitioner has failed to prove the accident and also disbelieved the evidence of PW.2 on the ground that his credibility was doubted in some of the orders passed by this Court. 4. The point for consideration is whether the order of the lower Tribunal is legal and sustainable? 5. POINT: So far as the cause of the accident is concerned, the evidence of the petitioner goes to show that while he was going in the lorry, another lorry came in the opposite direction and dashed against his lorry and he gave a complaint Ex.A.1 to the police. Though charge sheet is said to have been filed, it was not filed and therefore, an adverse inference was drawn. The lower Tribunal has failed to take into consideration that the 2nd respondent has not adduced any evidence and the owner of the vehicle also did not file a counter disputing the nature of the incident and practically the evidence of the petitioner is unchallenged about the cause of the incident. Therefore, the lower Tribunal has erred in dismissing the application on the ground that there is no proof of rashness and negligence as claimed by the petitioner. 6. So far as the injuries sustained by the petitioner are concerned, according to the petitioner, he sustained a fracture to left hand fore arm and also received head injury and other parts of the body and was admitted in Government Hospital, Nizamabad. He filed a discharge ticket Ex.A.2 and Ex.A.3 disability certificate. The evidence of PW.2, who is said to have treated the petitioner, spoke about Exs.A.2 and A.3. Though PW.2 was said to be a doctor in Government Hospital, he was also having a private clinic. Though some observations were made in some of the petitions against him they only show that the Tribunal shall not act solely on the evidence of another doctor. But, the above observations are said to have been expunged subsequently by the Supreme Court. 7. Taking into consideration the nature of the evidence claimed by the petitioner, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a sum of Rs.20,000/- is granted as compensation on all counts and the petitioner will be entitled to interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition. Accordingly, the M.A.C.M.A. is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:27.10.2011 INL