THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 2477 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order dated 15.09.2004 in O.P.No.600 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad questioning the quantum of compensation and fixing the contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. According to the case of the petitioner, on 30.01.1997 the petitioner was going on his motorcycle and when he reached Nasrullabad gandi, the lorry bearing No.AP-35-T-657 came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent driving by its driver and dashed against the motorcycle of the petitioner, as a result of which the petitioner received multiple injuries. Thereafter he was said to have treated at Nizamabad and at Karimnagar and was in hospital for sufficiently long time and was operated thrice. He claims to be a civil contractor and lost earnings and compensation was claimed at Rs.2,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent-owner remained ex parte and the 1st respondent-insurance company filed counter denying the petition averments, nature of accident, nature of injuries and its liability. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-65. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B-1 policy was marked. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.25,000/- and found that as there is a contributory negligence, the insurance company shall pay only 25% of the amount. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. The point for consideration is whether the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT: So far as the contributory negligence is concerned, in fact, there is no evidence and only on the basis of the facts that the petitioner was not having a valid driving license, the lower Tribunal has taken a view that there is contributory negligence on the part of the petitioner. This reasoning of the lower Tribunal cannot be accepted since not having a license is quite different from driving a vehicle rashly and negligently. There is no other evidence to prove the above facts. Therefore, the finding of the lower Tribunal, so far as the contributory negligence attributed to the petitioner-appellant is concerned, it has to be set aside. So far as the injuries are concerned, the lower Tribunal has taken into consideration Ex.A-2 wound certificate, which was issued by the Government Civil Assistant Surgeon, Bodhan and found that there are lacerated injury on the right leg below the knee, lacerated injury on the left ankle, tenderness of the upper teeth and the lacerated injury on the left side of the forehead and consequently granted a compensation of Rs.25,000/- for the said injuries and a sum of Rs.5,000/- was granted as compensation for pain and suffering. Though the medical bills were filed, a sum of Rs.3,000/- was only awarded as the particulars documents were not proved. The loss of earnings were fixed at Rs.3,000/- and the disability opined by P.W.2 is not accepted. Evidently, P.W.2 did not treat the petitioner and the alleged operations were not conducted by him. His opinion about the disability under Ex.A-4, therefore, cannot be taken into consideration. But the fact remains that the petitioner is said to have received five injuries, which are lacerations. Some documents were filed to show that he was treated at Karimnagar and also x-ray films were filed. The correctness of these documents is doubted by the lower Tribunal, but the fact that the petitioner must have been treated either at Nizamabad or Karimnagar, cannot be doubted. Even if the disability certificate is not considered, still the factum of the receipt of the injuries referred by the lower Tribunal cannot be ignored. Taking into consideration the above aspects, the granting of the medical expenses at Rs.3,000/- appears to be on a lower side. Since there is no proof as to how long the petitioner was in hospital, the determination of the loss of earnings also does not appear to be clear. Therefore, I do not find any reason to remand the case as desired by the learned counsel for the petitioner for adducing further evidence as the case is already of the year 1997. Taking into consideration the above circumstances, I feel the ends of justice would meet, if the compensation is enhanced to Rs.60,000/- on all counts. Therefore, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) and on the enhanced amount the interest rate shall be at 6% per annum. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed. No costs. ________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 31-10-2011 MR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No. 2477 of 2011 DATE: 31-10-2011 MR