HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A. No :4308 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order and decree dated 18.6.2003 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in O.P. No.1029 of 1999. The brief facts of the case are that on 16.3.1999, while the 1st respondent was proceeding towards his house on foot and when he reached near Dr. Vivahari’s house, a scooter bearing No. AP 25 B 4403 came in the opposite direction with a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the 1st respondent, due to which, the 1st respondent fell down and sustained a fracture to his right leg near foot region, besides sustaining injuries on other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Headquarters Hospital, Nizamabad where he underwent treatment. Hence, he filed the aforementioned O.P. claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/-. The owner of the vehicle filed counter mainly contending that his vehicle was duly insured with the appellant-insurance company and the insurance policy was subsisting as on the date of the accident in question. Hence, he is not liable to pay any compensation amount. The appellant-insurance company also filed its counter before the Tribunal denying all the material allegations. It also disputed the occurrence of the accident, the age and avocation of the 1st respondent. It also pleaded that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the scooter bearing No. AP 25 B 4403 by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation ? If so, to what amount and from which of the respondents ? 3. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent-injured claimant got himself examined as P.W.1 and got marked Exs. A1 to A9. On behalf of the appellant-insurance company, R.W.1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B4 were marked. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the scooter belonging to the 2nd respondent. However, while taking into account the injury sustained by the 1st respondent, it awarded an amount of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation. Challenging the same, the appellant-insurance company filed the present appeal. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the appellant-insurance company contended that the 1st respondent did not file any material to show that he had incurred an amount of Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenses. He further contended that even though the 1st respondent filed Ex.A4, wound certificate to show that he sustained a fracture, but he did not examine any doctor to prove the same, in the absence of which, the Tribunal was not justified in awarding a sum of Rs. 60,000/- as compensation. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, I find some force in this contention. Significantly, in the instant case, the 1st respondent did not examine the doctor who treated him or any other doctor to prove that he sustained a fracture. There is no explanation forthcoming from the 1st respondent as to why he did not examine any doctor, in the absence of which, the Tribunal was not justified in granting the compensation amount and the matter is liable to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal shall decide the O.P. afresh after giving an opportunity to the 1st respondent. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 27th January, 2011 pnb