THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No.2692 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the injured claimant against the order, dated 4.10.1999, passed in O.P.No.653 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, Nalgonda. 2. On 8.03.1996, the appellant while traveling in the Allwyn Nissan Van bearing No.AP-5-U-151 from Khammam to Narketpally market to sell the vegetables, met with an accident due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said vehicle. In respect of the injuries sustained by him in the said accident, he filed a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal granted only Rs.5,000/- excluding the second respondent-insurance company from the liability to pay compensation. Therefore, the claimant filed the present appeal questioning the finding of the learned Tribunal as regards the liability of the second respondent-insurance company to pay the compensation and also the quantum of compensation on the ground that the amount awarded is grossly inadequate. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the second respondent-insurance company. 4. Though the Tribunal recorded a finding basing on the evidence of PW.1-the appellant himself, that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Van, categorically held that Ex.B.1-policy is issued by the second respondent to the accident vehicle categorizing the vehicle as a commercial vehicle and the policy issued is ‘B’ policy in which only goods can be carried. The Tribunal also held that absolutely no material was placed by the appellant showing that he is traveling with his goods in the offending vehicle, which is a goods vehicle. Therefore, the Tribunal considered the appellant as gratuitous passenger consequently relying on the judgment in Smt. Mallawwa etc., v. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., & ors.[1], wherein it has been held that the second respondent- insurance company is not liable to pay compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant since he was traveling in a goods vehicle as gratuitous passenger and met with the accident. 4. The finding of the learned Tribunal on this aspect is based on the evidence and is also in accordance with law. The said finding does not call for any interference in this appeal and this point is answered against the appellant/claimant. 5. As regards the quantum of compensation, the version of the appellant is that immediately after the accident he was treated in Government hospital, Nalgonda and thereafter, he was referred to Neuro Surgeon in Osmania General Hospital to treat the head injury. It is apparent from Ex.A.6-O.P. ticket issued by the Government Hospital, Nalgonda, filed by the appellant. According to the appellant, subsequently, he was admitted in Kamineni hospital and he was treated there for the head injury as in-patient. However, the learned Tribunal considering the contention of the second respondent- insurance company that the appellant did not file any medical record relating to the Government Hospital, Nolgonda, and that the documents filed by him, which are said to be issued by the Kamineni Hospital, Hyderabad, are fabricated documents, came to the conclusion that the petitioner did not file any disability certificate and the discharge summary-Ex.A.8 issued by the Government Hospital only shows that the head injury received by the petitioner is simple in nature, granted Rs.5000/- for the simple injury received by the appellant. 6. The said finding is based on the evidence on record and the reasoning given by the Tribunal, being appropriate, does not call for any interference in this appeal. However, the Tribunal did not grant any amount towards pain and suffering. Though the evidence on record indicates that the appellant was subjected to prolonged treatment and the appellant filed Ex.A.9-medical bills, no amount was granted towards medical expenses. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the present case, though the entire amount covered by ExA.9-medical bills cannot be granted, a reasonable sum towards medical expenses can be granted. 7. Thus in this appeal, the petitioner is granted an amount of Rs.5000/- towards pain and suffering and a further sum of Rs.5000/- towards medical expenses. Now the petitioner is entitled for the total amount of Rs.15,000/- towards compensation. The enhanced amount of Rs.10,000/- shall carry interest at the rate of 6% p.a., from the date of petition till the date of realization. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the Civil Miscellaneous appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________ (R. KANTHA RAO, J.) 16th April, 2010 Js. [1] 1999 (1) LS, S.C.99