THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.1853 of 2003 Date:16.09.2010 Between: Boddana Pentayya ..... Appellant AND M. Rama Rao and others .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Jayanti S.C. Sekhar Counsel for Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: ORDER: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of the award dated 07.08.2000 in O.P.No.479 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge’s Court, Vizianagaram. The appellant, who is the claimant in the abovementioned O.P., claimed compensation of Rs.70,000/- for the injuries allegedly sustained by him when he was alighting lorry bearing registration No.AP 31 T 7247 near Bobbili Railway Station on 31.07.1995. In support of his claim, the appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-4. Respondent No.3, which contested the case, examined one of its officers as R.W.1. The Tribunal, on the analysis of the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. However, it has awarded a sum of Rs.3,500/- towards total compensation comprising Rs.2,500/- under the head of pain and suffering, Rs.500/- towards transportation expenses and another sum of Rs.500/- towards extra nourishment. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in rejecting the documentary evidence in general and Ex.A-4 - disability certificate issued by the District Medical Board, Vizianagaram in particular. In its award, the Tribunal referred to Ex.A-2 - wound certificate, wherein the Doctor, who issued the said certificate, has opined that the injury sustained by the appellant is simple in nature and that Ex.X-1 - copy of case sheet maintained in Government Hospital, Vizianagaram, does not disclose any fracture injury, which is grievous in nature. The Tribunal has discarded Ex.A-4 - disability certificate on two grounds, namely, that the person who issued the said certificate has not been examined and that the said certificate was obtained by the appellant five years after the occurrence of the accident, giving raise to a reasonable suspicion that whether he has sustained the disability either on account of the alleged accident or due to some other reason. Having carefully analyzed the reasons contained in the award, I am of the opinion that they are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any infirmity. As the claimant, the initial burden lies on the appellant to establish his case. Except relying on Exs.A-2 and A-4 to establish the nature of the injuries, the appellant could not adduce proper and sufficient evidence in support of his plea. As noted above Ex.A-2 itself discloses the nature of the injury as simple and therefore, there would have been no possibility of the appellant suffering 10% disability on account of such injury. Moreover, the appellant failed to examine the Doctor who treated him for the alleged injury and the person who issued the disability certificate. For the abovementioned reasons, I do not find any ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal and the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is accordingly dismissed. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 16th September, 2010 GHN