IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.2486 of 2003 Between: Pulla Narayana .. Appellant AND V. Venkateswarlu and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award dated 31-07-2001 in O.P.No.112 of 1997 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Ananthapur. The claimant/appellant was proceeding by a lorry along with his goods from Ananthapur to Dayyalakuntapalli village on 28-02- 1996 at about 7.00 P.M., after paying the charges to the driver and the 40 years old claimant, claiming to be earning Rs.300/- per month from business, sustained fractures on the left shoulder, thigh and head in the accident due to the lorry falling into a ditch near Rekulakunta village due to rash and negligent driving by the lorry driver. The claimant, therefore, sought for a compensation of Rs.50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the lorry. Crime No.24 of 1996 was stated to have been registered by the police concerning the accident. While the owner of the lorry remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer put the claimant to strict proof of his allegations and claimed the claimant to have travelled in the lorry as a fare paying passenger without carrying any goods of his. If the claimant was only a gratuitous passenger or even otherwise, the insurer claimed absence of any liability under the insurance policy, apart from putting the claimant to strict proof of a valid driving licence for the lorry driver, valid permit for the lorry etc. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation and during the enquiry, it examined PW.1 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.5 and the respondent did not produce any evidence. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award, firstly accepting the evidence of the injured-PW.1 corroborated by the First Information Report, wound certificate and charge sheet Exs.A.1 to A.3 to conclude the rash and negligent driving of the lorry causing the accident. The Tribunal assessed the compensation payable with reference to Ex.A.2-wound certificate disclosing three grievous injuries and two simple injuries and also Ex.A.5-Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Superintendent of the Government Head Quarters Hospital, Ananthapur about the deformity of 40% in the claimant’s leg. The Tribunal considered it just and adequate to award Rs.25,000/- for the three grievous injuries, Rs.6,000/- for two simple injuries and Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses. On the total compensation of Rs.34,000/-, the Tribunal considered it appropriate to award interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation and proportionate costs. Against the said award, the claimant is before this Court contending that the earnings of the claimant as Hamali at Rs.50/- per day were ignored and the entire compensation as claimed should have been accepted on accepted principles. Heard Sri G. Ramamohan Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri V. Krishna Rao, learned counsel for the insurer and none appeared for the owner of the lorry before this Court. The insurer did not challenge the award by way of any cross-appeal or cross-objections and the consideration herein is confined to the quantum of just and adequate compensation to which the claimant is entitled. The evidence on record discloses that the claimant relied on Ex.A.2-Wound Certificate and Ex.A.5-Disability Certificate to probablise the three grievous injuries and two simple injuries received in the accident. That such injuries were received in the accident can be considered corroborated by the earliest version in Ex.A.1-First Information Report and Ex.A.3-Charge Sheet, but the claimant apart from examining himself, did not examine either the doctor, who treated him or the medical superintendent, who issued Ex.A.5-Disability Certificate to enable appropriate assessment of the consequences of the injuries specified in Ex.A.2. In the absence of any such evidence, the assessment of the compensation by the Tribunal for the injuries at Rs.31,000/- cannot be revised and similar is the grant of only Rs.3,000/- towards medical expenses by the Tribunal as against Ex.A.4-medical bills to a tune of Rs.3,980-70ps., in the absence of proof of the said bills according to the Tribunal. The evidence of PW.1 did not refer to any other heads of damages that would have been considered by the Tribunal in this regard and hence, grant of Rs.34,000/- as against the claim of Rs.50,000/- and grant of interest at 9% p.a. from the date of petition cannot be considered interfereable in an appeal. The appeal has to, therefore, fail and is accordingly dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 08-08-2011 Ksn