IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY C.M.A.No.1329 of 2002 Date:27.10.2009. Between:- Guvvala Sidda Reddy ..Appellant And S.Naseeruddin and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT:- This appeal is directed against the order dated 20.04.1999 in O.P.No.209 of 1996 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Vehicle Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Cuddapah wherein the claim of the appellant was allowed in part by awarding compensation of Rs.70,827.75ps with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard both sides. 3. Perused the records. 4. The appellant filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 21.09.1995. According to the claimant, on that day, while the claimant was taking betel leaves load from Machupalli to Nizamabad in the vehicle-Swaraj Mazda bearing No.A.P.04-T-2187 and reached near Sakhapur Sivar, it dashed against a stationed lorry on the back side on account of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, as a result of which, he sustained multiple serious injuries including fracture of left leg below knee. He was taken to Government Hospital, Mahaboobnagar and subsequently, shifted to Government Hospital, Kurnool. He claims that he was doing betel leave business and the injuries have caused permanent disability, resulting in loss of income. 5. The owner of the lorry-respondent No.1 remained exparte. 6. Respondent No.2/insurer filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability. 7. During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-6 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by respondent No.2. 8. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle driven by its driver in which the claimant was traveling and the Tribunal held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs.70,827.75ps with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of the petition. Not satisfied with the Award, the present appeal is filed by the claimant. 9. The finding of the Tribunal that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver in which the claimant was traveling and that the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation has become final as no appeal is filed by the respondents. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Tribunal failed to take into consideration the disability certificate-Ex.A-2 and awarded no compensation for the permanent disability sustained by the claimant. Except filing the document-Ex.A-2, the claimant has not taken any steps to prove its contents by examining the concerned Doctor, who issued Ex.A-2. In Ex.A-2, Dr.D.Ramachandraiah, who issued certificate has stated that the claimant sustained a permanent disability of 25%. The said Dr.Ramachandraiah is not examined to prove the contents of Ex.A-2 and to testify the nature and extent of the permanent disability said to have been incurred by the claimant either physically or functionally. In the absence of proof of contents of Ex.A-2 by the concerned Medical Expert, the Tribunal has rightly ignored Ex.A-2. The question of awarding any compensation towards loss of future income on account of any permanent disability does not, therefore, arise, as the claimant has failed to establish that he sustained any permanent disability on account of the injuries. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.57,327.75ps towards medial expenses incurred, Rs.3,000/- towards transport charges, Rs.3,000/- for pain and suffering and Rs.7,500/- for the grievous and simple injuries. As seen from the evidence on record, the claimant was inpatient in the hospital for about a month. He must have therefore incurred some expenditure towards extra nourishment and also transport charges having regard to the nature of the injuries sustained by him. 10. In the circumstances, it is considered just and proper to award a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.5,000/- towards transport charges in addition to the amount already awarded by the Tribunal. The appellant, is, therefore, entitled for enhancement of compensation of Rs.10,000/- with interest at 9%p.a. from the date of the appeal. The impugned order, dated 20.04.1999, is accordingly modified to the extent stated above. 11. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 27th October, 2009 AMD