THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.NO.1809 OF 2011 JUDGMENT:- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.Srinivasa Rao, the learned counsel for the second respondent/Insurance Company. The appeal is filed against the award of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-V Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in O.P.No.276 of 2000 whereunder for the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- towards the injuries received in a motor accident, a sum of Rs.3,000/- was granted. The case of the petitioner is that on 22-07-1999 when the petitioner was going on a cycle, a lorry bearing No.AP25-T-5756 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which, he received multiple injuries and he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kamareddy and spent money for treatment. Though he was entitled for a claim of Rs.8 lakhs, he claimed only a sum of Rs.1 lakh. The Insurance Company denied the liability and put the petitioner to strict proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle and nature of the injuries and also expenditure incurred by the injured. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal granted a compensation of Rs.3,000/-. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence of PW.1 read with the evidence of PW.2 goes to show that the petitioner has received multiple injuries and though the other documents could not be filed, the court should not have rejected the evidence of PW.2. As can be seen from the evidence of PW.2, he has examined the petitioner evidently on 05-12-2003 which is nearly three years after the incident and found some malunited fracture and also disability of 40%. However, this witness has not treated the injured at the time of accident and the Insurance Company has denied that the petitioner has received multiple injuries. There cannot be any dispute about the fact that the burden is on the petitioner to prove that he received injuries in a motor accident which are grievous and that he spent money for treatment and was operated or hospitalised. Evidently, no reason was given as to why the doctors who treated him were not examined. Ex.A-2 certificate found to be not clear and the lower court also was not convincing with Ex.A-3. The lower court also taken into consideration the fact that the police have filed only a charge sheet under Section 337 IPC. But, however, taking into consideration the evidence of PW.2 and also the fact that there was a malunited fracture and there being no other reason which can be inferred, I feel ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.50,000/- is granted on all counts. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and the petitioner/claimant is entitled for a sum of Rs.50,000/- towards compensation in stead of Rs.3000/- as granted by the lower Tribunal. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 29-08-2011 TSNR