HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA M.A.C.M.A.No. 438 of 2005 DATED: 04.02.2011 Between: Neerati Ramulu ..Appellant Vs. 1. M. Narsaiah 2. The United India Insurance Co. Ltd. …….Respondents JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the impugned order dated 20.12.2004 passed in O.P.No. 58 of 2003 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Fast Tract Court)-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, whereby the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed, the claimant has filed the present appeal. The facts of the case in brief are that on 09.05.2002, at 10.30 A.M., the claimant along with another was travelling by a lorry bearing No. APJ 3133 from Bodepalli village to Nizamabad Gunj while transporting maize, turmeric and black gram. When the lorry reached Chepur village, the driver of the lorry in which the claimant was travelling, drove it at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner, as a result, the lorry turned turtle, and the claimant sustained fracture to his right hand, waist, ribs, and injuries on head and other parts of the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Nizamabad, where he was treated for two months, thereafter, he was treated in the hospital of Dr.T.Narsing Rao, an Orthopaedic Surgeon, for two months and spent Rs.1,00,000/- for his treatment. Prior to the accident, the claimant was earning Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- p.a. and also Rs.1,500/- per month by selling milk. In spite of the treatment, he is not able to do any work. Hence, he suffered permanent disability and loss of earnings. Therefore, he filed O.P. No. 58 of 2003 claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent-owner of the lorry remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent-Insurance company filed written statement denying all the allegations of the petition, including the accident, expenditure towards treatment, loss of earnings of the claimant, etc. and stated that the driver of the lorry had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Based on the pleadings of both the parties, the Tribunal framed relevant issues as to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry, the entitlement of the claimant for compensation and the liability of the respondents to pay the same, and after considering the evidence available on record, dismissed the claim petition. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that soon after the accident, the claimant was treated by PW2, who issued Ex.A3-wound certificate, as per which, he suffered two injuries 1) Fracture of both bones of right forearm and 2) Fracture of scaphoid bone of the right wrist, which are grievous in nature, however, the Tribunal, discarding the evidence of PW2 - medical witness and Ex.A3 – wound certificate issued by him, observed that except Ex.A3, the claimant did not produce any documents to prove that he sustained injuries mentioned in Ex.A3, and thus, the claimant failed to prove that he sustained injures in the alleged accident. It is further canvassed on behalf of the appellant-claimant that the Tribunal erred in discarding the evidence of PW2 opining that he did not suffer injuries in the accident, that too, in the face of Ex.A3 issued by PW2. It is also pointed out that the Tribunal also failed to consider Ex.A5 issued by PW3, according to which, the appellant-claimant suffers from permanent and partial disability of 40%. It is also submitted that though medical bills are not filed, the Tribunal ought to have awarded reasonable amount towards medical expenses as is evident from the evidence of PW2 – medical witness and Ex.A2 – wound certificate and Ex.A5 – disability certificate that the appellant-claimant was treated by him. Though it is apparent from the evidence of PW2 that the appellant was treated for two months at Government hospital Nizamabad and for another two months in private hospital, the Tribunal did not consider this aspect. The Tribunal also failed to consider loss of his daily earnings during the period of four months of his treatment. It is further canvassed that the Tribunal failed to consider the injuries sustained by the appellant, who was disabled from looking after his agricultural operations during the period of his treatment. The Tribunal also erred in not considering the case of the appellant though Ex.B1 – insurance policy of the crime vehicle was in force by the date of the accident. On the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the respondent-insurance company that though the appellant pleaded in his claim petition that the accident had occurred while he was travelling by a goods vehicle along with goods, yet he failed to file any document to prove his version, therefore, the Tribunal rightly exonerated the 1st respondent-owner and the 2nd respondent – insurer from joint and several liability. Further, what the appellant was carrying in the goods vehicle was not goods but luggage. It is also canvassed that Ex.B1 - policy is not a requisite document to possess when passengers are carried in a goods vehicle. Therefore, it is contended that the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition. Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material placed on record. From a perusal of the order under challenge, it is clear that the Tribunal, based on the evidence of PW1 coupled with Ex.A1-certified copy of F.I.R. and Ex.A2- Charge sheet, felt that the accident had occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle, and thus, answered the 1st issue in favour of the appellant- claimant and against the respondents. However, the Tribunal appears to be in error in not considering the case of the appellant-claimant in respect of the head “medical expenses”. Though medical bills are not stated to have been filed, it is to be seen in the evidence of PW2 – medical witness, Ex.A2 – wound certificate and Ex.A5 – disability certificate that the claimant suffered two injuries which are grievous in nature and suffered permanent and partial disability by 40% and he was treated for two months in Government hospital and another two months in private hospital. The Tribunal also appears to be in error in not considering the loss of his daily earnings during the course of his treatment. Moreover, Ex.B1 – insurance policy was in force by the date of the accident, but there is no material on record to show that the claimant owns any land and is carrying on any agricultural operations. Further, the claimant claims to have spent huge amount towards his treatment. Therefore, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is inclined to grant the claimant an amount of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.40,000/- towards disability, Rs.10,000/- towards loss of daily earnings during the course of treatment for four months. Hence, this appeal is partly allowed and the claimant is granted a total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- under all heads together with interest at 6% p.a. from the date of filing the present appeal till realisation. No order as to costs. ________________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 04.02.2011 bcj