HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.N0. 3732 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: This Appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1989, is directed against the order dated 09.09.2005 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal cum XXI Additional Chief Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in M.V.O.P.No.481 of 2002 filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs.8,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident that occurred on 31.12.2001/01-01-2002 while he was proceeding on his LML Vespa slowly on the extreme left side of the road, from Dobhi Cross roads and proceeding towards I.S. Sadan, Santoshnagar, an ambassador car bearing No. AP 10T 9348, came from opposite direction with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed him, as a result of which, the appellant-claimant sustained fractures of right femur, both bones of right leg, right patilla, and also injuries on back, head and all over the body. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent, driver of the offending vehicle, granted compensation of Rs.1,90,000/- fixing liability against both the respondents jointly and severally for payment of compensation with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant-claimant submits that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the evidence of Orthopedic surgeon and also failed to take into consideration the permanent disability of the appellant-claimant. There is no question of granting award in respect of disability. Therefore, since the Tribunal wrongly granted less compensation, the same may be enhanced or it is better to remit the matter to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. 4. Learned counsel for the 1st respondent contended that the doctor who treated the appellant was not examined and that the Tribunal also held that had the appellant-claimant examined the doctor, he would have got more compensation. He further contended that the Tribunal considered all the issues including disability certificate issued by P.W.2, however, there is no record before the Tribunal to show that the appellant was suffered permanent disability or removed from service. Hence, he prayed that there is no need for this Court to interfere with the order under impugned. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- claimant and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and also perused the entire material made available on record. 6. As seen from the record, it is no doubt true that the accident occurred on 31.12.2001 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the car bearing registration No. AP 10T 9348. It is also no doubt true that from the contents of Exs. A1 to A3 and from the evidence of PW-1, it is established beyond doubt that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the offending vehicle and accordingly the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.1,90,000/- towards total compensation. Be that as it may, the Tribunal did not grant any amount in respect of disability as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant. It is also no doubt true that before the Tribunal the doctor who treated the appellant was also not examined, which is a crucial aspect for granting compensation towards disability. Hence, in my considered view, the Tribunal has to consider this aspect of the matter. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 09.09.2005 in M.V.O.P.No.481 of 2002, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum XXI Additional Chief Judge, Nampally, Hyderabad, is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh disposal by considering the issues as to whether the appellant is entitled to compensation in respect of disability and also to ascertain the fact whether the appellant was removed from service or not. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date: 23.12.2010 Kvr