HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.1640 OF 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the order in O.P.No.421 of 1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- II Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Nizamabad, where- under for a claim of compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries received in a motor accident, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.14,000/-. 2. The claim of the petitioner is that on 13.01.1997 he boarded the jeep bearing No.APR 5486 proceeding to Balkonda from Armoor and due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by its driver, it turned turtle, as a result of which, the petitioner received multiple injuries and he spent money for treatment. The 2nd respondent-insurance company claimed that there was no accident as claimed and the petitioner did not sustain the said injuries in the motor accident. It was also pleaded that the petitioner has already approached the Workmen’s Compensation Tribunal and therefore, the present application is not maintainable. On considering the rival contentions, the learned Tribunal found that the incident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver and found that the petitioner has failed to prove the disability or grievous injury and as such granted the compensation of Rs.14,000/-. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the evidence of PW.2 clearly goes to show that the petitioner was treated in the hospital on 15.01.1997 with four injuries and one of them is a fracture and he was treated till 03.02.1997 and issued discharge certificate Ex.A.2. The evidence of PW.2 discloses that there is 26% partial and permanent disability. The learned Judge did not accept the evidence of PW.2 on the ground that he has not treated the petitioner on the date of incident. The lower Tribunal also found that the X-ray report is not filed and also did not place reliance on Ex.A.2 discharge card. But, however, the lower Tribunal found that one injury was caused to the petitioner on his head and one injury was caused to the petitioner’s face and they are simple injuries and he also found that there are two simple injuries caused to the petitioner to the left and limber region and therefore, granted a compensation of Rs.14,000/-. Evidently, the evidence of PW.2 shows that he has treated him though not on the date of incident but subsequently. According to him, one injury is a fracture. To discard his evidence nothing could be made out as to how he is interested to speak falsehood. Therefore, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.20,000/- is granted for all the injuries and if a further sum of Rs.5,000/- is granted as compensation towards medical expenses and attendance and total compensation to which the petitioner entitled to is Rs.25,000/-. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _________________________ N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO, J Date: 04.08.2011 INL