THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.206 of 2003 and CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.23167 of 2003 ORAL COMMON JUDGMENT: Heard the learned Standing Counsel for appellant-National Insurance Company Limited. Learned counsel for the cross objector- claimant is not present and there is no representation on his behalf. 2. Since both the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the Cross Objections arise out of the order and decree passed in the same O.P., they are heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. 3. Aggrieved by the order and decree, dated 10.4.2002, in O.P.No.362 of 2001, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Court), Nizamabad District (for brevity “the Tribunal”), awarding a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation, as against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-, for the injuries sustained by the 1st respondent-claimant in a motor accident that occurred on 8.9.2000, at 1-30 p.m., in the outskirts of Bibipur thanda, due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry, bearing registration No.MP 09 8965, belonging to the 2nd respondent, civil miscellaneous appeal has been preferred by the appellant-insurer of the offending vehicle and cross objections have been preferred by the claimant. 4. The appellant is the insurer of the offending vehicle and 1st respondent is the claimant-cross objector. 5. This is a case of injuries sustained by the claimant in the motor accident. The particulars regarding the accident and the aspect of negligence are not referred to since not in dispute. The Tribunal, after appreciating the evidence on record, both oral and documentary, awarded a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- towards compensation. Challenging the quantum of compensation, the appellant insurer had preferred the civil miscellaneous appeal and the claimant preferred the cross objections seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is proper and justified. 7. It is the main contention of the learned Standing Counsel for the appellant-insurer that Ex.A-3 injury certificate is not proved by examining the doctor, who issued the said certificate and there is no corroborative evidence to substantiate the claim of the claimant that she sustained fractures of right clavicle and four ribs. 8. As per Ex.A-3, the injuries suffered by the claimant are – (1) fracture of right shoulder, and (2) fractures of 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th ribs and both the injuries are grievous in nature. Medical bills have also been filed to that effect. 9. In this regard, it is to be seen that though it is essential for the claimant to examine the doctor, who issued Ex.A-3 injury certificate, to substantiate the injuries sustained by her, I am of the view that it is always not absolutely necessary to examine the doctor, particularly in view of the nature and intent of the legislation, which is more benevolent towards the claimants. After examining each and every aspect, the Tribunal had rightly awarded the amount of compensation. Therefore, I am not inclined to interfere with the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 10. Coming to the cross objections filed by the claimant, having regard to the facts and circumstances, I feel it inexpedient to arrive at a different conclusion than the one arrived at by the Tribunal and enhance the amount of compensation. 11. For the foregoing, I do not find any merit either in the civil miscellaneous appeal or in the cross-objections and the same are liable to be dismissed. 12. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal and the cross objections are dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA 08.07.2010. Msr THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.206 of 2003 and CROSS OBJECTIONS (SR) No.23167 of 2003 08.07.2010 (Msr)