THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL Nos.2537 of 2003 and 977 of 2005 Date:30.09.2010 CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.2735 of 2003: Between: K. Gurja ..... Appellant AND J. Sudhaker Reddy and others. .....Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: None appeared Counsel for Respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4: none appeared Counsel for Respondent No.3: Mr. K. Jamali, for Mr. R. Briz Mohan Singh CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.977 of 2005: Between: The United India Insurance Co., Ltd. .. Appellant AND K. Gurja and others ..Respondents Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. K. Jamali, for Mr. R. Briz Mohan Singh Counsel for the Respondents: None appeared The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER: Both these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of the common award dated 20.03.2003 in O.P.No.751 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- IV Additional Chief Judge’s Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad(for short ‘the Tribunal’). For convenience, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed in C.M.A.No.977 of 2005. I have heard Sri K. Jamali, the learned counsel representing Sri Briz Mohan Singh, the learned standing counsel for the appellant insurance company. No one appeared for the respondents. C.M.A.No.977 of 2005 is filed by the insurance company feeling aggrieved by the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Respondent No.1 filed C.M.A.No.2537 of 2003 feeling dissatisfied with the award of compensation. Respondent No.1 is a waste paper collector and building construction labourer, who was injured in an accident occurred on 27.02.2001 when respondent No.2, who was riding a scooter insured with the appellant, has hit him. Claiming that he has sustained a fracture and that he was treated for the same in Osmania General Hospital, respondent No.1 filed O.P.No.751 of 2001 for award of Rs.4,39,400/- under different heads towards compensation. In support of his claim, respondent No.1 examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7. The Tribunal on finding that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of respondent N.2, awarded a sum of Rs.1,03,600/- under the following heads: - (a) Rs.75,000/- towards fracture injuries, (b) Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, (c) Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities, (d) Rs.5,000/- towards cost of medicines and other incidental expenses, and (e) Rs.3,600/- towards loss of past earnings for a period of three months from the date of the accident. As noted above, while the insurance company has filed its appeal questioning the award of compensation, respondent No.1 has filed his appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that respondent No.1 has failed to examine the Expert to speak to the injuries in support of Ex.A-4 - wound certificate and Ex.A-5 - X-Rays. The learned counsel further submitted that even assuming that respondent No.1 has suffered fracture, the wound certificate is self-contradictory because it is stated therein that the petitioner has sustained fracture of supra condylar right femur, but it is again mentioned that there is a combined fracture of both bones of left leg upper 1/3rd. The learned counsel submitted that for a fracture injury, respondent No.1 is not entitled to a compensation of more than Rs.15,000/- to Rs.20,000/- . He has further stated that the Tribunal, having awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.3,600/- towards loss of past earnings, ought not to have awarded a further compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. I have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, except his own ipsi dixit, respondent No.1 failed to examine the Doctor to corroborate his evidence and speak to the contents of Exs.A-4 and A-5. Non-examination of the Doctor has deprived the appellant of the opportunity to elicit the true and correct nature of the injuries suffered by respondent No.1. The law is well settled that any amount of medical evidence adduced regarding the nature of injuries is not admissible without the claimant examining the Doctor. As respondent No.1 failed to examine the Doctor, Exs.A-4 and A-5 ought to have been eschewed from consideration by the Tribunal. Therefore, the question that remains to be considered is in the absence of medical evidence, whether respondent No.1 is entitled to award of compensation? In his chief examination affidavit, P.W.1 has inter alia deposed that due to the accident he has become permanently disabled and that he was admitted in a private hospital, where on noticing that he has suffered serious injuries, he was advised for fracture treatment in Osmania General Hospital, where he was treated as inpatient till 06.04.2001. He has further stated that on account of the serious injury he has suffered, he was unable to attend to his normal work as he is not in a position to move without the support of others. In cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that he has sustained fracture of both legs and denied the suggestion that the injuries sustained by him are simple in nature. From the above evidence, it can be safely be concluded that respondent No.1 has suffered injuries in the accident and he was treated as inpatient in Osmania General Hospital. In my opinion, a sum of Rs.20,000/- is reasonable to be awarded as compensation towards the injuries he has suffered. Further, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, the appellant, having been awarded Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.3,600/- towards loss of income, was not entitled to a further compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards loss of amenities. The award of the Tribunal is accordingly modified under the following heads: (a) Rs.20,000/- towards injuries; (b) Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; (c) Rs.5,000/- towards medical expenses; and (d) Rs.3,600/- towards loss of income. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, the appellant has deposited 50% of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal and that the same was withdrawn by respondent No.1. Having regard to this fact, I find it appropriate to hold that respondent No.1 need not refund the balance amount withdrawn by him in excess of Rs.38,600/- and that the appellant is not liable to pay the balance sum of 50%. Ordered accordingly. As a sequel to these findings, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed by respondent No.1 is liable to be dismissed. In the result, C.M.A.No.2735 of 2003 is dismissed and C.M.A.No.977 of 2005 is partly allowed to the extent indicated above. As a sequel to disposal of the C.M.As., C.M.A.M.P.No.983 of 2006 in C.M.A.No.2537 of 2003 and C.M.A.M.P.No.4176 of 2006 in C.M.A.No.977 of 2006 are disposed of as infructuous. ________________________ C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J 30th September, 2010 GHN