IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE TENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD C.M.A.751 of 2000 Between: Javeed .. Appellant AND G. Umamaheshwar and another .. Respondents JUDGMENT: The appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Nizamabad in O.P. No.309 of 1995, dated 13-05-1999. The guardian/father of then minor petitioner claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- from the owner and insurer of the jeep No. ATJ 6101 claiming that the minor petitioner was going by walk on the side of the road on 17-03-1995 at about 10 A.M. near Shanthinagar to Church road, when the jeep, driven rashly and negligently, without blowing horn, dashed him from behind. The jeep’s front wheel ran over the minor petitioner resulting in fracture of jaw, loss of teeth and disfiguration, apart from injuries all over the body. The minor petitioner was treated at the Government hospital, Nizamabad and thereafter by private doctors at an expense of Rs.60,000/- and he suffered permanent disability and lost his earnings. While the owner of the jeep remained ex parte, the insurer contested the claim putting the petitioner to strict proof of the allegations and contending that the driver of the jeep had no subsisting valid driving licence and the ownership of the vehicle with the 1st respondent and its insurance with the 2nd respondent are also not admitted. The Tribunal framed issues on the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the petitioner to compensation and examined P.Ws.1 and 2 during the enquiry, while marking Exs.A.1 to A.12 and Ex.B.1. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the investigation done by the police showed the accident to have occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep as disclosed by Ex.A.1 first information report and Ex.A.2 charge- sheet. The Tribunal accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 in this regard and coming to the quantum of compensation, it noted that the minor petitioner sustained three injuries in the accident and was treated as in-patient in the District Head Quarters hospital, Nizamabad from 17-03-1995 to 07-04-1995. The Tribunal considered it appropriate to grant a compensation of Rs.25,000/- keeping in view the tender age of the minor petitioner and the pain and suffering undergone by him. The compensation was directed to carry interest at 12 per cent per annum and proportionate costs were also awarded. The aggrieved petitioner approached this Court with this appeal contending that the fracture of mandible resulting in permanent disability of 30% should not have been compensated with a meagre sum of Rs.25,000/- and grant of lump sum compensation without appropriate break-up is not in accordance with law. Sri I. Aga Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Sriman, learned standing counsel for the insurer are heard and none entered appearance for the 1st respondent, owner of the subject vehicle. The finding of the Tribunal about the rash and negligent driving of the jeep resulting in the accident had become final in the absence of any challenge by any party to the case and the liability of the owner and the insurer of the vehicle to justly and adequately compensate the injured petitioner has not been challenged by either respondent. Thus, it is only the quantum of compensation that is in issue in the present appeal. Sri Sriman, learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent invited attention to the decision in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Imtiaz Ahmed[1], wherein a learned Judge of this Court found that Dr. L. Ramulu had issued a wound certificate and a certificate of disability illegally and directed to treat the wound certificates and disability certificates issued by him as a nullity. The learned Judge directed communication of the said findings to all Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in the State, so that such certificates are not acted upon and his oral testimony in this regard is not accepted. Unfortunately for the petitioner, it is the same doctor, Dr. L. Ramulu, that examined P.W.1 herein before the Tribunal and certified under Ex.A.12 about 30% permanent partial disability suffered due to the fracture of mandible of the petitioner. In the light of the binding judicial directions in the decision cited, his evidence has to be excluded from consideration and so also Ex.A.12. If such evidence is excluded, what remained is the evidence of the minor petitioner’s father as P.W.1 and even the petitioner himself was not before the Tribunal as a witness. The evidence of P.W.1 in reiteration of the claims made in the petition finds no corroboration from the documents in respect of the claim of loss of teeth or head injuries and the alleged treatment of the petitioner under a private doctor at an expense of Rs.50,000/- to Rs.60,000/- is not corroborated by any documentary evidence. The earnings of the minor petitioner at Rs.50/- per day as a mason were also not supported by any other evidence and the boy aged 14 years working as a mason does not sound natural. The evidence of P.W.1, thus, offers no definite guidance to make any different assessment of the compensation to which the petitioner is entitled. The absence of proof of any definite loss of earnings or medical expenses or permanent disability leaves no scope for interfering with the quantum of compensation assessed by the Tribunal at Rs.25,000/- keeping in view the tender age of the petitioner and pain and suffering undergone by him. That apart, the minor petitioner could have become a major due to efflux of time, but no steps were taken to have him declared as major and to continue the appeal on his instructions. Irrespective of the same, there appear no grounds to interfere with the award in question on facts. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 10-08-2010 Svv [1] 2005 (1) ALT 637