THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1148 of 1998 JUDGMENT: The appellant filed O.P.No.680 of 1993 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy claiming a sum of Rs.75,000/- as compensation for the injuries said to have been sustained by him in an accident. He stated that on 04.08.1993, he was coming from his shop at 10:30 am on the extreme left side of the road at Chegunta and a lorry bearing No.AP 28T 1112 owned by the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent dashed against him. He is said to have received multiple facture injures to his right hand, fracture injuries to his right ulnar and other parts of the body. He was said to have been shifted to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabd and even after discharge from that hospital, he has undergone treatment in various clinics for different ailments. According to him, he incurred expenditure of Rs.30,000/- for treatment and extra-nourishment and that he suffered loss of income also. Reference was made to Crime No.74 of 1992 registered under Section 337 of I.P.C. in relation to the accident. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The O.P. was contested by the 2nd respondent alone. It denied the occurrence of the accident and the other contentions advanced by the appellant. Through its order, dated 24.11.1997, the Tribunal dismissed the O.P. on the ground that the appellant failed to prove the rashness on the part of the driver of the lorry. Hence, this C.M.A. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for respondent No.2. The 1st respondent remained ex parte in the O.P. as well as in this appeal. This Court is indeed shocked to note the approach of the Tribunal in this case. In the O.P., the appellant had clearly narrated the manner in which he sustained injuries. Apart from deposing as P.W.1, he examined P.Ws. 2 and 3. the Doctors, who treated him. Ex.A.1 is the copy of the F.I.R and Exs.A.2 to A.4 are the O.P.chits issued by the Gandhi Hospital. To prove that he was running a shop, the appellant filed Ex.A.7, licence issued by the Gram Panchayat, and the medical bills and reports issued by different Hospitals are filed as Ex.A.12 to A.48. P.W.3 issued the disability certificate and the same is marked as Ex.A.49 and the certificate issued by P.W.2 was marked as Ex.A.50. Except that a copy of the insurance policy was marked as Ex.B.1, no evidence was adduced by the respondent. On the question as to whether the accident occurred on account of the rashness on the part of the driver, the Tribunal took the view that in the absence of any eye-witness, the version of the appellant cannot be taken into account. So far as Ex.A.1, the F.I.R. is concerned, the Tribunal approached in a very cynical manner and has gone to the extent of saying that merely because a complaint has been lodged against the lorry driver, the occurrence of the accident on account of the rashness on the part of the lorry driver cannot be presumed, unless the investigation is completed or the investigating officer has come to the conclusion on the basis of the statements recorded by him. Such a cynical approach is totally impermissible in the course of implementation of social security measure. In case, the respondents wanted to dispute the contents of the F.I.R. or the plea of the appellant, they could have adduced their own evidence. They have not chosen to examine the driver as a witness. An adverse interference needs to be drawn in this regard. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in that regard is reversed and it is held that the driver of the lorry is responsible for the accident. Coming to the quantum of compensation, the Doctors, P.Ws.2 and 3 certified that the appellant suffered multiple injuries, so much so the union of the broken bones was not proper. Towards pain and suffering for such a grievous injury, a sum of Rs.20,000/- deserves to be awarded. The appellant was not able to furnish the extent of loss of income sustained by him. However taking into account the totality of circumstances, a further sum of Rs.30,000/- is awarded towards medical expenditure and loss of earnings. Therefore, the C.M.A. is allowed awarding compensation of Rs.50,000/- with interest at the rate of 7% from the date of the order passed by the Tribunal. There shall be no order as to costs. __________ 13.12.2011 JSU THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE L.NARASIMHA REDDY C.M.A.No.1148 of 1998 Date: 13.12.2011 JSU