HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED M.A. C.M.A. No :4346 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the dated 9.6.2008 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XXII Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad in O.P. No.173 of 2006. The brief facts of the case are that on 24.7.2005, when the appellant was retuning from the marriage of his sister’s daughter on his scooter towards Vidyanagar and when he reached near Petrol pump, it was raining heavily and as such the appellant changed his mind and wanted to come back to his in-law’s house and as such, he turned his vehicle towards Lakdikapul and at that time, a lorry bearing No. AP 11W 3651 belonging to the 1st respondent came in the opposite direction and dashed against the scooter of the appellant, due to which, the appellant and the pillion rider fell down and he sustained grievous injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Mediciti Hospital for treatment and undertook treatment there as an in-patient. The appellant was working as a contract doctor at Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and was earning Rs.55,000/-per month. By virtue of the accident, he could not attend to his work for a period of three months and thus he suffered loss of earnings to an extent of Rs. 1,65,000/-. Hence, he filed the aforementioned O.P. claiming compensation of a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/-. The 2nd respondent-insurance company filed its counter affidavit stating that the accident did not occur on account of rash and negligent driving on the pat of the driver of the lorry. It also pleaded that the compensation claimed was excessive and exorbitant. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were settled for trial. 1. Whether the accident took place on 24.7.2005 due to rash and negligent driving of MCH lorry bearing No. AP 11W 3651 by its driver resulting injuries to petitioner ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation? If so to what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the appellant, P.Ws. 1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A21 were marked. On behalf of the 2nd respondent, no oral evidence was let in, however ExB1 was marked with consent. Ex.C1 is marked through Commissioner. On a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Tribunal awarded an amount of Rs.2,21,385/- as compensation together with interest at 6% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the appellant-claimant filed the present appeal. Learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contended that even though he examined Dr. J. Madhusudhan Rao to show that he is the doctor, who treated the appellant for the injuries sustained by him and he also sustained disability by virtue of the said injuries, the said doctor did not state whether the injuries caused to the appellant are grievous in nature and whether he sustained permanent disability. Hence, he prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned order be set aside. According to Dr. J. Madhusdhan Rao, P.W.3, the appellant sustained the following injuries: 1. Left Peri sylvian Subarachanoid Haemorrhage 2. Left Frontotemporal fracture with small EDH 3. RT temporal bone depressed fracture 4. Fracture matilary sins-Ant and Laeral walls blaterally. 5. Fracture bilateral walls of orbits 6. Fracture ZF area 7. Fracture of shoft RT femur 8. Right tibial plateau fracture 9. Comminuate fracture superior pole of LT patella 10. Fracture undisplaced comminuted fracture of RT scapula with neck. In the instant case, even though P.W.3 stated that the appellant sustained the aforesaid injuries, but he did not mention whether the injuries sustained by him are grievous in nature and whether he suffered any permanent disability, in the absence of which, the Tribunal was not justified in granting a sum of Rs.2,21,385/- as compensation and the matter is liable to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal shall decide the O.P. afresh after giving an opportunity to the appellant to lead evidence. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED,J DATE: 31st March, 2011 pnb