HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1396 OF 2001 DATED: 15.12.2009 BETWEEN: Chilmula Venkatachari .. Appellant And Chedalla Ram and others .. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO.1396 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the order, dated 22.02.1995 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, Karimnagar in O.P.No.62 of 1993. 2. This appeal is filed by the injured-claimant seeking compensation of Rs.50,000/- in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 18.10.1991 where a lorry bearing No. AEE 6687 over turned due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry, in which the appellant was traveling as goods owner. 3. Against the claim of Rs.50,000/-, the learned Tribunal granted compensation of Rs.7,500/-. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant- claimant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent-insurance company. 5. The learned Tribunal proceeded on the premise that besides his oral testimony the appellant marked Ex.A.2-medical certificate issued by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government District Head Quarters Hospital, Karimnagar, but not examined the doctor, who issued the said certificate and ultimately granted an amount of Rs.7,500/- towards pain and suffering. 6. It is evident from the award that the learned Tribunal having considered the oral testimony of the appellant, who is examined as PW.1 and the contents of Ex.A.2 medical certificate found that the appellant received two grievous injuries, one on the occipital region and another is below the left eye. Perusal of Ex.A.2 certified copy of the certificate reveals the said injuries mentioned by the Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government District Headquarters Hospital, Karimnagar. It is true that the doctor was not examined, but the evidence borne out by the injury certificate cannot be thrown out on the ground that the doctor was not examined. It is not the case wherein the Tribunal had to consider any sort of disability sustained by the appellant, but the Tribunal had only to consider the nature of injuries sustained by the appellant for that purpose a finding can be given basing on the oral testimony of the injured and the contents of injury certificate. The proceedings before the learned Tribunal in respect of the claim for compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act are summary in nature and the strict rules of evidence and procedure need not be followed while making an enquiry into the claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Further the Tribunal also can adopt its own procedure and can proceed to decide the issues by following the principles of natural justice. In the present case, Ex.A.2 medical certificate is marked without any objection from the third respondent- insurance company and therefore, it is not open for it to contend that the contents therein are not correct. It is specifically mentioned in Ex.A.2 that the two injuries sustained by the appellant were grievous in nature. The learned Tribunal therefore, ought to have granted compensation for the two grievous injuries sustained by the appellant. Therefore, in this appeal, an amount of Rs.20,000/- (Rs.10,000/- + Rs.10,000/-) was granted to the appellant for the two grievous injuries sustained by him and a further sum of Rs.5,000/- can be granted towards pain and suffering. In all the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of Rs.25,000/-. 7. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for a compensation of Rs.25,000/-The enhancement amount of compensation would be Rs.17,500/-. The interest @ 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization being on higher side, is reduced to 7.5% per annum in this appeal. 8. With the above enhancement in the amount of compensation and reduction in the rate of interest, the appeal is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________________ R.KANTHA RAO,J Dated: 15.12.2009 kvrm