HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.3207 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the 2nd respondent, which is the Insurance Company, challenging the award in O.P.No.221 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, NTR Nagar. 2. A claim for compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- was filed for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident. According to him, on 22.08.1998 when he was returning in a Tata Sierra bearing No.AP 9R 2772 and reached the outskirts of Ballarsha, Maruthi Van bearing No.MH 34 6617 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the Tata Sierro, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries and his vehicle was damaged. He also suffered loss of earnings. 3. The appellant herein contended that there is no rashness or negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Van and the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner and also the nature of the treatment are disputed. The lower Tribunal after considering the evidence on record and though the Insurance Company of the vehicle with which the vehicle was insured, was not a party to the proceedings fixed the contributory negligence at 50% each and granted a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- and apportioned the same to be payable by the appellant. 4. The point for consideration is whether there is contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the Maruthi Van bearing No.MH 34 6617 and if so, the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? 5. POINT: So far as the nature of the incident and involvement of the vehicle is concerned, there is no dispute. The lower Tribunal has taken into consideration the fact that charge sheet has been filed against the drivers of both the vehicles. The lower Tribunal also found fault with the petitioner in not examining the driver of his vehicle and also in not adding insurance Company as a party to the proceedings. Evidently, the vehicle owned by the petitioner is a heavy vehicle and Maruthi Van is a light vehicle and causing a big hit so as to damage the vehicle of the petitioner due to the collision and to cause severe injuries is difficult to be accepted. However, taking into consideration the fact that the police have filed charge sheet against the drivers of both the vehicles, it can be taken that there is contributory negligence and the proportionate determination of the compensation by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. However, so far as the compensation for the injuries is concerned, the lower Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.25,000/- towards fracture, a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards transport charges, a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards further medical expenses and Rs.35,000/- towards loss of income. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the determination of the compensation by the lower Tribunal is not proper. But, as can be seen from the record, the evidence of PW.2 shows that there is no disability or deformity as the fracture was united. The lower Tribunal also found that the doctor, who treated the petitioner, was not examined and the reports from the General Hospital Chandrapur or the Private hospital, Manchiryal, were not produced and the documents filed by the petitioner, which are Exs.A.3 to A.6 go to show that he was admitted in Satya Kidney Centre on 23.08.1998 and took the treatment. Therefore, from the material evidence on record, it is quite clear that there is no proper proof and even otherwise there is no disability. Therefore, I feel that the quantum of Rs.35,000/- granted towards loss of income cannot be sustained and it has to be set aside. Accordingly, the compensation is reduced to Rs.65,000/- and the liability of the appellant is fixed to 50% of the compensation. Accordingly, the award is modified and the appeal is allowed. No costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:15.12.2011 INL