* THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO + C.M.A.No. 3614 of 2000 % Date:27.11.2009 Between: # Pullemla Krishnaiah …Appellant And/- Chirtala Anjaneyulu and two others …Respondents ! Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. M.Raja Malla Reddy ^ Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared. <GIST: > HEAD NOTE: ? Cases referred THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 3614 of 2000: Date:27.11.2009 Between: Pullemla Krishnaiah …Petitioner And/- Chirtala Anjaneyulu and two others …Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 3614 of 2000: JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant against the order dated 20.07.1996 in O.P.No.32 of 1992 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), at Nalgonda on the ground that the compensation granted is inadequate and thereby seeking enhancement of the same. 2. The respondents 1 and 3 though served with notices, there was no representation on their behalf. Whereas the second respondent-owner of the vehicle remained ex parte before the Tribunal below and as such, service of notice on second respondent in this appeal is not necessary. 3. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that as against the claim of Rs.50,000/-, the Tribunal granted only an amount of Rs.8,000/- in respect of four injuries, out of which one is grievous in nature and thus, the compensation granted is very low and requires enhancement for awarding just and reasonable compensation. 5. In the Tribunal below the appellant was examined as PW-1 and the certified copy of F.I.R. was marked as Ex.A-1 and certified copy of injury certificate was marked as Ex.A-2 without any objection from the opposite parties. 6. The learned Tribunal upon considering the evidence found that PW-1 sustained fracture to his left forearm, injuries to his left forearm, injuries to his fingers of both of his hands and both of his thighs, waist, shoulders and on his head and Ex.A-2 certified copy of injury certificate disclosed the following injuries: i) Contusion of 1” x 1 ½ “ left finger, ii) Fracture to left wrist, iii) Abrasion 2 ½ x 2” on parietal region, iv) Abrasion 2 x 1” on abdomen. The learned Tribunal, thus, having reached the opinion that the appellant received three simple injuries and one grievous injury held that Ex.A-2 wound certificate does not show that x-ray of left wrist of PW-1 was taken and the x-ray film was not produced into Court and thereby granted a lump sum amount of Rs.8,000/- as compensation. 7. The question which requires determination in this appeal is as to whether without the doctor who issued Ex.A-2 wound certificate being examined as a witness whether the compensation can be granted taking into consideration the nature of injuries mentioned in Ex.A-2 wound certificate? 8. In order to appreciate the said question, it is necessary to refer Section 169 of Motor Vehicles Act, dealing with procedure and powers of Claims Tribunal, which reads as follows: “(1) In holding any inquiry under Section 168, the Claims Tribunal may, subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, follow such summary procedure as it thinks fit. (2) The Claims Tribunal shall have all the powers of a Civil Court for the purpose of taking evidence on oath and of enforcing the attendance of witnesses and of compelling the discovery and production of documents and material objects and for such other purposes as may be prescribed; and the Claims Tribunal shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (3) Subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, the Claims Tribunal may, for the purpose of adjudicating upon any claim for compensation, choose one or more persons possessing special knowledge of any matter relevant to the inquiry to assist it in holding the inquiry.” 9. From the wording of Section 169 of the M.V. Act, it is obvious that though the Claims Tribunal has all the powers of Civil Court for the purpose mentioned in sub-section 3 of Section 169 of the Act, it may follow the summary procedure as if necessary. 10. The intention of the Legislature, therefore, appears to be that the Tribunal constituted under the Motor Vehicles Act need not follow the elaborate procedure for holding an enquiry under Section 168 of M.V. Act. The word ‘enquiry’ is used but not the trial. Further the Tribunal can adopt the procedure of its choice subject to any rules that are framed in relation to the enquiry to be held by the Claims Tribunal. 11. Therefore, if the Tribunal is satisfied from the evidence of injured and also from the contents of injury certificate that the injured sustained simple or grievous injuries, as the case may be, can even in the absence of the evidence of the Doctor, grant compensation to the injuries mentioned in the injury certificate. It is only when the amount has been claimed towards loss of earnings basing on the disability, if any, sustained by the injured claimant, the Tribunal of-course may insist upon the production of disability certificate and also examination of doctor who issued disability certificate for satisfying itself as to the nature and extent of the disability. Thus, there is no legal impediment for the Tribunal to award compensation basing on the evidence of injured claimant and by perusing the contents of injury certificate. In the instant case, in my considered view, the learned Tribunal erred in holding that in the absence of x-ray report, the injury No.2 cannot be considered to be grievous even though it is mentioned by the doctor who issued the injury certificate that the said injury is a grievous injury. Since the summary procedure is contemplated under the Act and the Tribunal is empowered by the Legislature to adopt its own procedure, there is no legal impediment for the Tribunal to grant compensation taking into consideration the contents mentioned in the injury certificate dispensing with the evidence of the doctor, more particularly, when the injury certificate is marked without any objection from the opposite party. 12. In this context, it requires to be noticed that strict rules of Evidence Act have no application to the proceedings under the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal under Motor Vehicles Act is empowered by the Legislature to evolve its own summary procedure for adjudicating the compensation claims. However, the Tribunal while evolving the said procedure cannot depart from the basic rules of evidence relating to proof. If the opposite party specifically disputes the authenticity or genuineness of a document, the party relying on the said document cannot be relieved of the burden of proving the said document. When, once the document is marked without any serious challenge to its genuineness or authenticity, it would be no longer open to the party which allowed the document to be marked to contend that the Tribunal cannot rely on the contents of the document. The Tribunal in such a situation is competent to arrive at a decision regarding the probative value of the document weighing the veracity of the versions of contending parties. 13. In this case, the respondents allowed the injury certificate of the appellant/claimant to be admitted in evidence and marked as Ex.A-2 on his behalf without any protest as to its genuineness or authenticity. They are therefore precluded from contending that the Tribunal cannot look into Ex.A-2 to form its opinion about the nature of injuries mentioned therein in the light of the other evidence available on record. This Court therefore is of the view that the learned Tribunal ought to have considered the nature of injuries mentioned in Ex.A-2 injury certificate. 14. Accordingly, in this appeal, for the three simple injuries sustained by the appellant, an amount of Rs.3,000/- x 3 = Rs.9,000/- can be granted and for grievous injury, an amount of Rs.15,000/- can be granted as compensation. This apart, a further sum of Rs.10,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering. In all, the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs.34,000/-. The enhancement, therefore, would be Rs.34,000/- minus Rs.8,000/- = Rs.26,000/-. The enhanced compensation of Rs.26,000/- shall carry interest at 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. 15. In the result, with the above enhancement in the compensation, the appeal is allowed in part without any order as to costs. _____________ R. KANTHA RAO, J Date:27.11.2009. Note: L.R. copy has to be marked. B/O Ccm THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.No. 3614 of 2000: Date:27.11.2009