THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. NO.1909 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed against the award in O.P.No.1421 of 1999 on the file of the Court of Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District at N.T.R.Nagar, by the Insurance Company questioning the quantum of compensation and its liability. A claim was made for a sum of Rs.5 lakhs which was enhanced from the original claim of Rs.2,50,000/- for the injuries said to have been received by the claimant in a motor accident. According to the claimant, on 13-10-1999 at about 2.30 P.M at Pedda Amberpet village, near Koheda cross road, when he was going by walk, at that time one Auto Trolley bearing No.AP11 V 604 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which, he fell down and received multiple injuries and he also suffered disability. The first respondent is the owner of the vehicle and second respondent is the Insurance Company. The first respondent remained ex parte and second respondent filed a counter putting the petitioner to strict proof of rashness and negligence; the nature of the incident and quantum of compensation. The lower Tribunal after considering the solitary testimony of PW.1 and also Exs.A-1 to A-9 and Ex.B-1 granted a compensation of Rs.3,50,000/-. Aggrieved by the said judgment the present appeal is filed. The Insurance Company is said to have filed I.A.No.1402 of 2004 under Section 170 of Motor Vehicles Act and permission was granted on 09-07-2004 to raise all contentions open to the owner of the vehicle. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT:- The learned counsel for the appellant does not seriously dispute about the nature of the accident, but, his contention is that the assessment of the compensation made by the lower Tribunal is not supported by any legal evidence and the incident has happened on 13-10-1999 and the certificate Ex.A-6 was relied upon without examining any Doctor and amputation was said to have been done on 01-02-2002, which is nearly three(3) years after the incident and there being no connecting evidence to show that the amputation was a consequence of the injuries received in the motor accident, granting of Rs.2 lakhs as compensation towards loss of earnings is not proper. So also the grant of medical expenses @ Rs.1,50,000/- is also not supported by any evidence and the Doctors who treated the petitioner at Kamineni or Nims hospitals were not examined. The period of confinement in the hospital after the incident and a continuous treatment till the date of amputation is not established and in the absence of such evidence, granting of compensation of Rs.3,50,000/- by the lower Tribunal is evidently based on no evidence. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, when huge claim is made, the burden is on the petitioner to produce necessary evidence to support the claim and the court cannot take too liberal view in order to burden the Insurance Company with compensation of huge quantum. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the award of the lower Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded to lower Tribunal for consideration afresh with regard to nature of the injury; the nature of the treatment and expenses incurred by the petitioner and on consideration of such evidence, a fair, just and reasonable compensation shall be determined by the lower Tribunal. The lower Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case expeditiously within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this court after affording an opportunity to both parties. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 15-11-2011 TSNR