THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE P.DURGA PRASAD Letters Patent Appeal No.16 of 2004 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice B. Prakash Rao,J) This appeal is at the instance of the injured claimant in respect of proceedings arising out of determination of compensation. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 8.6.1991, while the appellant was travelling as pillion rider on the scooter bearing No. APR 1288 being driven by one Bhoomiah and when they reached near Srinivasa Poultry Farm within the limits of Theegalaguttapalli Village, a van bearing No. AIH 6007 being driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner came in the opposite direction and dashed against the scooter. As a result, the said Bhoomaiah and the appellant sustained injuries. The appellant sustained compound fracture of left leg and bleeding injuries on the head and other parts of the body. Hence, he filed O.P. No. 340/91 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Court, Karimnagar claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. While opposing the O.P., the respondents 1 and 2, driver and owner of the van filed their counter affidavit stating that the driver of the scooter drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the scooter and dashed against the van even though the 1st respondent was driving the van cautiously. They also denied the avocation of the appellant. They further stated that the compensation claimed was excessive. Before the Tribunal, the insurance company also filed its counter stating that the insurance policy is not traced with the particulars given in the petition and the appellant had to prove that the driver of the scooter had valid driving licence at the time of accident. Further the 2nd respondent, owner of the insurance company did not inform the insurance company about the accident in collusion with the appellant. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident took place due to the rash and negligent driving of the van AIH 6007 by its driver ? 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to compensation and if so to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? During the course of trial, on behalf of the appellant, P.Ws. 1 to 4 were examined. However, no documentary evidence was let in. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. The Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence on record, held that there was contributory negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter and accordingly held that 50% of the amount has to be paid by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. In so far as the treatment undergone by the appellant is concerned, the appellant pleaded that he had spent an amount of Rs.50,000/- for treatment. The Tribunal on a consideration of the evidence on record, even though granted an amount of Rs.60,000/- as compensation, but in view of contributory negligence, the liability was fixed at 50% each on the driver of the scooter and the driver of the van and thus granted an amount of Rs.30,000/-. Being dissatisfied with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the appellant carried the matter to this Court by way of C.M.A. No. 1399 of 1993 and a learned single judge of this Court through the order impugned in this appeal, granted an additional amount of Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses. Being aggrieved by the order of the learned single judge, the appellant preferred the present appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant has stated that the driver of the scooter filed another O.P. No. 655 of 1991 before the Tribunal in respect of the very same accident and in that petition, the learned judge after examining the said Bhomaiah has given a finding that there was no rash and negligence on the part of the driver of the scooter and held that the accident in question occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the van. Therefore, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the finding given by the Tribunal with regard to contributory negligence and denial of 50% of the amount of compensation in the present O.P. filed by the appellant, runs contrary to the finding given in respect of negligence in the aforementioned O.P. and the learned single judge without considering the same, has erroneously confirmed the finding of contributory negligence recorded by the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. Though, much stress is sought to be laid on the judgment in O.P. No. 655 of 1991 and the finding recorded by the Tribunal with regard to rash and negligence in the said O.P., admittedly, no proper application has been filed by the appellant as contemplated under Order 41 Rue 27 of C.P.C. for production of additional evidence before the Tribunal. In view of the same, the said document cannot be received in evidence nor can it be relied upon for any other purposes. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why the appellant could not file such an application, in the absence of which, the said finding recorded by the Tribunal, as confirmed by the learned single judge in the appeal cannot be interfered with. In so far as enhancement of compensation is concerned, the learned single judge on re- appreciation of the evidence on record, has already enhanced the compensation amount by granting a further sum of Rs.15,000/- . In view of the same, we do not find any merits in the present appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ B.PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ P.DURGA PRASAD, J 09.02.2011 pnb