THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.3124 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P.No.1726 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-IV Additional District Judge, (F.T.C.), Nizamabad, dismissing his application for compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- due the injuries received by him during the accident. According to the case of the claimant, on 11-08-2011 while he along with his paternal uncle was going on a motor cycle and at about 1.30 P.M a jeep bearing No.25-T-5166 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle, as a result of which, the claimant sustained injuries to his legs, ribs and other pars of the body. He was said to have been treated in the Government hospital, Nizamabad and police complaint is said to have been given. The vehicle was owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. First respondent remained ex parte in the lower Tribunal and second respondent filed a counter disputing the allegations and putting the petitioner to strict proof with regard to accident and nature of injuries. On behalf of the petitioner PWs.1 and 2 are examined and marked Exs.A-1 to A-6 and Ex.C-1. On behalf of the respondent, no evidence is adduced. After considering the evidence on record, lower Tribunal has dismissed the claim of the claimant on the ground that the evidence of Doctor-PW.2 is not believable and the record from the Government hospital is not filed and consequently the nature of the incident itself is a doubtful. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal is filed. Now the points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the petitioner received injuries in a motor accident? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to a compensation and if so to what extent? POINTS:- The evidence of PW.1 goes to show that on the date of incident, when he was going on a motor cycle, the jeep came from behind in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle. He filed a copy of First Information Report-Ex.A-1 and copy of the charge sheet Ex.A-2. In the cross examination, it was suggested that the driver of the motor cycle has no licence and it was further suggested that he did not receive injuries as claimed. Even, in the counter-affidavit filed by the Insurance Company or in the cross examination of PW.1, there is no specific denial of the incident. But, however, the learned Tribunal taking into consideration the evidence that PW.2 was indicted in other cases by the High Court, his evidence of treating the PW.1 is doubtful and consequently the nature of the incident itself is false and has been planted as an injured to get the compensation. This reasoning of the lower Tribunal is not proper. In fact, the evidence of PW.1 goes to show that he has given the complaint to the police and the police have registered the case. The investigation done by the police also clearly goes to show that the claimant was treated by PW.2 and there was three injuries, which were said to be two abrasions and also fracture of right side chest 2nd, 3rd, and 4th ribs. Even if the evidence of PW.2 with regard to fracture of the bones and subsequent treatment is to be taken as an exaggeration, still the investigation done by the police clearly goes to show that the claimant received injuries in the motor accident and he was treated in the Government hospital. In fact the driver of the jeep was also prosecuted on the basis of the charge sheet. That being so the finding of the lower Tribunal that there is every chance of planting the claimant as an injured in the accident for getting the compensation does not appear to be correct. On the basis of indictment of PW.2 by the High Court, which is said to have been subsequently set aside, the evidence of PW.1 which is not challenged cannot be discarded. Therefore, from the evidence on record, it is quite clear that the claimant received injuries in the motor accident and two of them are simple and one is grievous one. Even as per Ex.A-3 and investigation done by the police also substantiate the same. In view of the above circumstances, I feel ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.20,000/- is granted for pain and suffering and further a sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted as compensation for medical expenses. Therefore, the total compensation to which the petitioner is entitled Rs.25,000/-. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards total compensation with interest at 7.5% from the date of petition till date of realization. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 29-11-2011 TSNR