HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.950 OF 2002 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the claimant against the judgment in O.P. No.521 of 1991 dated 12-10-2001 passed by the learned Chairman, Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunal – cum - District Judge, Medak, Sanga Reddy, seeking enhanced compensation. 2. The case of the claimant is that on 03-06-1991 at about 5-00 AM, while he was travelling in a lorry bearing No.MEP – 4398 from Sadasivpet towards Hyderabad along with wooden logs, at Nandivagu Bridge near Nandivagu Village, on account of rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, the lorry turned turtle and the claimant sustained fracture of his right leg, left hand shoulder etc., and he was shifted to hospital, where he underwent treatment for four days. He suffered four fractures. Hence, he claimed Rs.1,00,000/- towards compensation. 3. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the Tribunal: 1. Whether the injuries received by the petitioner (claimant) caused permanent disability in a motor vehicle accident on 03-06-1991 due to the rash and negligent driving of Lorry MEP – 4398 by its driver ? 2. Whether the petitioner was traveling as an un-authorised passenger in the said lorry ? 3. Whether the driver of the said vehicle was not having valid driving licence to drive such vehicle and the vehicle is road-worthy to ply ? 4. Whether the claims by the same claimant i.e., O.P. No.521 of 1991 and 533 of 1991 are maintainable ? 5. Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation from the respondents, if so, at what quantum ? 6. To what relief ? 4. On behalf of the claimant, he got himself examined as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-5. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced. 5. Based on the material on record, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.35,000/- to the claimant as against his claim of Rs.1,00,000/-. 6. Now the only question that arises for consideration is as to whether the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is appropriate ? 7. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and Sri A. Ramalingeswara Rao, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 - the United India Insurance Company Limited, and perused the material on record. 8. Though the claimant claims that he suffered four fractures, there is no authentic material to prove the same. He filed Exs.A-2 to A-4 discharge slip, O.P. chit and disability certificate respectively, but no medical officer is examined. At least, case sheet is also not called for from the Hospital, which would have been of some authentic value. The documents filed i.e. Exs.A-2 to A-4 do not inspire much confidence. Ex.A-2 shows the date of admission into the hospital as 04-06-1991 and date of discharge as 08-06-1991 and it shows that there were three fractures. Ex.A-3, O.P. chit, shows the date of admission as 03-06-1991 and date of discharge as 04-06-1991, which is against Ex.A-2. Ex.A-4 is the photostat copy of the disability certificate issued on 16-02-1993. It refers to four fractures. It is not clear as to how the Doctor, who issued Ex.A-4, could have issued such a certificate after 6 months by mentioning four fractures. This Doctor refers to loss of teeth also, about which the claimant himself did not speak. Further, claimant states that he was treated as inpatient in Gandhi Hospital for one week. Ex.A-2 would not show that it is of Gandhi Hospital. Thus, there is no consistent or authentic evidence on behalf of the claimant. 9. Thus, absolutely there are no grounds to enhance the compensation awarded to the claimant. In fact, the compensation awarded itself is more than reasonable in the circumstances, where there is no authentic evidence about the injuries suffered by the claimant and the treatment taken by him. Hence, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J June 15, 2010. PV