THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A.C.M.A.No. 1588 of 2005. JUDGEMENT: This appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the order and decree dt. 21.3.2005 in O.P.No. 1210 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad whereby the learned Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 11,300/- as against the compensation claimed for Rs. 1,00,000/-. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 6.5.1998, the appellant was proceeding on the lorry bearing No. AP 13T 1323 with a load of Red Stones from Umnabad to Hyderabad and when the lorry reached Madigi X Roads at about 5 a.m. one green colour Leyland lorry came in opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed on right back side of the lorry in which the appellant was travelling and consequently the lorry jolted and the appellant and two other labourers fell down from the lorry and the appellant sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, the appellant was shifted to Osmania General Hospital from whereby he was shifted to M/s Baba Surgical Nursing Home at Lingampally, BHEL where he was treated. The appellant filed claim petition claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- stating that he was earning a sum of Rs. 1800/- p.m. and that his earning capacity was permanently disabled due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident, against the owner and insurance company of the lorry. Before the Tribunal, the owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent, the insurer of the lorry filed a counter disputing the involvement of the lorry in which the appellant was travelling in the alleged accident and also denying that the appellant sustained permanent earning capacity due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Basing on the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the accident has taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 13 T 1323belonging to the respondent No.1? ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation, if so to what amount and from which of the respondents? iii) To what relief? Before the Tribunal, the appellant himself was examined as Pw.1 and got marked Exs:A.1 to A.6. No evidence, either oral or documentary, was adduced on behalf of the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal below relying on the evidence of Pw.1 coupled with Ex:A.1 held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry belonging to the 1st respondent and accordingly held the issue No.1 in favour of the appellant. Though the appellant did not adduce any documentary evidence to show that he was earning a sum of Rs. 1800/- per month, the Tribunal below accepted his oral evidence that he being a labourer and concluded that the appellant was earning a sum of Rs. 1800/- per month. Since, the appellant failed to examine the doctor who treated him, the Tribunal did not consider the medical evidence adduced by the appellant and taking the injuries sustained by the appellant as simple injuries, awarded a total compensation of Rs. 11,300/- under the heads of pain and suffering, loss of earnings and extra nourishment, by the Award impugned in this appeal. Aggrieved by the impugned Award, the claimant filed the present appeal contending that the Tribunal below awarded a very meagre compensation as against the claim for Rs.1,00,000/- and that the Tribunal below ought to have taken into consideration Exs:A.2, Ex:A.3 and Ex:A.5 and ought to have awarded a reasonable compensation. The learned Counsel for the Appellant relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Raj Kumar vs. Ajay Kumar[1] wherein the Supreme Court framed certain guidelines with regard to examination of doctors in respect of accident claims and that one of the guidelines is that where the certificate given by doctor is not contested, it may be marked by consent, dispensing with oral evidence. Relying on the above said guideline, the learned Counsel for the Appellant contended that though the Tribunal marked Exs:A.2, A.3 and A.5, the same were not considered for the purpose of computing the compensation. On the other hand, the Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent supported the award impugned. Though in Ex: A.5, it was shown that the appellant sustained injury over the left parietal area, fracture of left leg over upper 1/3rd, fracture of left shoulder and multiple injuries over the body, the same were not taken into consideration on the ground that the doctor who issued them was not examined. Since, the 2nd respondent did not dispute Exs:A.2, A.3, and A.5, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, the same can taken into consideration for computing compensation. In view of the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- can granted for the fractures to left leg and left shoulder and sum of Rs. 10,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering, a sum of Rs. 15,000/- can be granted towards loss of earnings, a sum of Rs. 10,000/- can be granted towards medical bills and another sum of Rs. 5,000/- can be granted towards extra nourishment. In all the appellant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 50,000/-. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs. 11,300/- to Rs. 50,000/-. The enhanced compensation shall carry interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realisation. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J 24.03.2011. KRB. THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No. 1588 of 2006. JUDGEMENT: Dt. 24.3.2011. [1] 2011 ACJ 1.