THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.3341 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved against the order and decree in MVOP.No.440 of 1998 dated 06.03.2003 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Srikakulam, the present appeal is filed. Brief facts of the case are as follows: On 13.08.1997, while the appellant-claimant, along with his cleaner, was travelling in his lorry bearing No.AP 30/T-0432 for the purpose of bringing kerosene from Visakhapatnam and when the said lorry reached Turakasasanam Village, the respondent’s lorry bearing No.KA 07/2377, which was coming from Ichapuram and proceeding towards Palasa, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the claimant’s lorry resulting in multiple injuries all over his body. After due enquiry, the lower Court, holding that the appellant failed to establish that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the respondent’s lorry bearing No.KA 07/2377 or that the first respondent was its driver, rejected the claim of the claimant for compensation. Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the lower Court without evaluating the documentary evidence, Exs.A.1 A.6, gave erroneous finding that the appellant-claimant is not entitled to any compensation. He further urged that the lower Court ought to have relied on Exs.A.1 to A.6 and awarded compensation. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents urged that there is no dispute about the accident and only raised objection for granting compensation. The points for consideration is whether there are any grounds for granting compensation and whether the order of the lower Court is sustainable. It is an admitted fact that the appellant-Gujju Thumbanadham Reddy sustained injuries in the motor accident that occurred on 13.08.1997 at 10.30 p.m. In order to prove his injuries, PW.1 did not examine any witness. Except the sole testimony of PW.1, none others were examined. Exs.A.1 to A.6 are Photostat copies of the documents evidencing the accident and the medical treatment undergone by the appellant. The lower Court dismissed the claim of the appellant on the ground that Exs.A.1 to A.6 are Photostat copies. A perusal of the documents, Exs.A.1 to A.6, were pressed into service through the evidence of PW.1-injured. The lower Court did not object for marking the documents. Had the lower Court taken objection of marking the documents, the present circumstances will not prevail. Having marked the documents, Exs.A.1 to A.6, the lower Court disowned the authenticity of the said documents. Now we have to see whether the injuries sustained by PW.1, as narrated in his evidence, is true. A perusal of Ex.A.2, Wound Certificate, supported by Ex.A.5, Out-Patient Chit, shows that the appellant-claimant sustained 11 injuries and as per the opinion of the doctor, the said injuries are simple in nature. Though the appellant-claimant claimed compensation towards treatment and extra nourishment, he did not adduce any evidence. On the other hand, he admitted in his cross-examination that he has no evidence to claim compensation under different heads. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and taking into consideration the injuries as noted in Ex.A.2, Wound Certificate, and also the age of the injured, I deem it appropriate to grant Rs.1,000/- to each injury. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part and an amount of Rs.11,000/- (Rs.1,000 x 11) is awarded to the appellant for the 11 injuries sustained by him. The aforesaid amount shall carry interest at 6% from the date of petition till the date of realization. No order as to costs. K.S.APPA RAO,J Dt:04.02.2011 usd