THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED C.M.A.No.1324 of 2003 JUDGMENT This appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, is directed against the order, dated 24.10.2002, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool, (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in O.P.No.388 of 2000 filed by the appellant-claimant claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on 09.07.1997 when a lorry bearing No.APD 8384 dashed the jeep, in which he was travelling. Respondents 1 and 3 being owners of the jeep and the lorry respectively, remained ex parte and Respondent No.2-insurer of the jeep filed counter denying the averments made in the petition. 2. The Tribunal having held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of lorry, awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- with interest at 9% per annum payable by the third respondent-owner of the lorry from the date of the petition till the date of payment. Aggrieved by the same, the claimant filed this appeal. 3. The appeal against respondent No.3 was dismissed for default on 28.01.2010. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant contended that as there was contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers of the jeep and the lorry, the Tribunal ought not to have fastened the liability only on third respondent-owner of the lorry. He further contended that the Tribunal erred in not considering the evidence of P.W.2-Assistant Ortho Surgeon, who stated that the claimant had sustained permanent disability at 20% and granted less compensation to him. 5. The claimant, who was examined himself as P.W.1, has categorically stated that when himself and others were returning in the jeep after attending the Panchayat at Allagadda and when it reached near Neelakanteswara Shilpa Kalamandir, the lorry came in opposite direction at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the jeep, as a result of which, two persons died on the spot and he sustained injuries. According to him, the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of the jeep and the lorry. But, Ex.A1-FIR clearly shows that the driver of the jeep was not rashly driving at the time of the accident and that the driver of lorry drove it in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the jeep. Except his evidence, the petitioner has not examined any person, who travelled in the jeep at the time of the accident. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence, it cannot be said that there was contributory negligence on the part of both the drivers of the jeep and the lorry. Further, as the lorry was not insured, no policy has been filed. 6. Insofar as enhancement of compensation is concerned, the Tribunal determined 10% disability as per Ex.A5-disability certificate and awarded a sum of Rs.28,800/- towards loss of income due to 10% disability, Rs.5,000/-towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/-towards medical expenses and Rs.1,200/- towards attendant charges and in all, a sum of Rs.45,000/- is awarded as compensation, which is just and reasonable and the same need not be interfered with by this Court. 7. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _____________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J Date:19.08.2010 sj