IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. NO.619 OF 2007 DATED:20.07.2010 Between: The New India Assurance Company Limited Rep. by its Branch Manager 1st floor, Yarava Building, Datha Centre, Yavatmai (Maharastra State) … Appellant And Karipe Gangadhar and another … Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR M.A.C.M.A. NO.619 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: This appeal is by the Insurance Company against the Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal–cum-District Judge, Nizamabad, in O.P. No.1099 of 2003, dt.14.9.2005. The claim made by the first respondent – claimant is with regard to the injuries suffered in the motor vehicle accident. The nature of the injuries seem to be quite substantive inasmuch as the right eye of the claimant is affected seriously. Apart from that, there are various other injuries for which the claimant claimed compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- and the said claim was sought to be established with reference to the wound certificate as well as the certificate of blindness to the extent of one eye, medical prescriptions, C.T. scans and medical bills etc., which were marked as Exs.A.3 to A.15. The claimant also examined a doctor, who treated the claimant, as P.W.2. The Tribunal below on consideration of the entire evidence has awarded compensation of Rs.2,40,000/- towards injuries and Rs.2,965/- towards reimbursement of medical expenses, aggregating to Rs.2,42,965/-. In this appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the method and manner in which the said compensation is arrived at is not discernible from the Award/judgment. The Award, it is true, does not discuss either the occupation of the claimant or his earning capacity, nor it discusses the quantification of the amount under various heads. Paragraph-23 of the judgment only quantifies the aggregate amount of Rs.2,40,000/-, but the method and manner in which the said compensation is arrived at is not discernible from the judgment. The learned counsel for the appellant is therefore right in contending that the impugned Award is not sustainable as the Tribunal ought to have ascertained the earning capacity of the injured and then assessed the damage and the disability suffered on account of the injuries. Quantification of the amount under various heads is therefore essential so as to appreciate the manner in which the said compensation is arrived at. The learned counsel for the respondent – claimant is seeking to justify the Award on the basis of the evidence of the claimant, but there is no reference thereto in the impugned Award. I am therefore constrained to set aside the impugned Award and remit the O.P. for fresh disposal to the Tribunal below with a direction that the O.P. shall be considered afresh on the basis of the evidence on record. The learned counsel for the appellant requests that he may also be granted one opportunity to lead further evidence, if any. Similar opportunity can also be provided to the claimant also. Accordingly, the first respondent - claimant as well as the appellant – insurance company shall be given one opportunity each to lead additional evidence, if any, and then the Tribunal below shall decide the claim petition on the basis of the material produced before it afresh, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Pending this appeal and as per the interim direction dt.3.4.2007 in M.A.C.M.A.M.P. No.1438 of 2007, half of the awarded amount with interest was deposited by the appellant and by a further order of this Court dt.26.9.2007 the claimant has withdrawn the said amount. It is therefore clarified that the withdrawal of the said amount shall abide the result of the decision of the Tribunal in the O.P. as directed hereinabove. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. _______________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J 20.07.2010 bnr