THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.2561 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed against the award dated 18-11-2003 in M.V.O.P No.762 of 2001 on the file of the Court of Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawaeda. The petitioner is said to have received injuries in a motor accident and a claim was made for a sum of Rs.4,51,112/- and the lower Tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.1,32,000/-. According to the case of the petitioner, on 16-03-2001 at about 1.30 P.M while he was crossing the road to reach Ashok Book Stall, at that time a lorry bearing No.AP.32.W.259 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, as a result of which, he received injuries and was treated at Charithasri Hospital, Vijayawada and suffered disability. The 3rd respondent is the Insurance Company and 1st respondent is the driver and 2nd respondent is the owner of the lorry. Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte in the lower court and 3rd respondent filed a counter denying the allegations and putting the petitioner to strict proof with regard to disability and nature of the injuries. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.1,32,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the present appeal has been filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the award passed by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT:- There is no dispute about the nature of the incident and cause of injuries to the petitioner. As can be seen from the record and also the injury certificate, the petitioner is said to have received some abrasions and lacerations. The discharge summary shows that the petitioner has got diffuse cerebral oedema fracture of right occipital scalp. The discharge summary also shows that the treatment was conservatively done. The evidence of the doctor PW.2 who claims to have admitted the petitioner shows that the petitioner has got injury as mentioned in Ex.A-2 discharge summary and he was hospitalised from 16-03-2001 to 25-04- 2001. He was said to be in the intensive care unit. The head injury was managed conservatively in nature and no surgery was done. Taking into consideration the above nature of the injury, the lower court has granted a compensation of Rs.32,000/- for pain and suffering of the injuries. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that the medical bill has been produced for a sum of Rs.2,31,112/- and the lower Tribunal has only considered a sum of Rs.1 lakh and the petitioner is entitled to the said amount. Evidently, Ex.A-3 is a credit bill. No further proof is filed to show that the said amount has been, in tact, paid and receipt was about the payment of the amount was not filed before the lower Tribunal. As can be seen from the above bill, huge amount was charged for investigations and also for Oxygen and ventilator charges and when there is no operation conducted on the patient much of the amounts mentioned in the credit bill Ex.A-3 cannot be given credence. In fact, the evidence of PW.2 is only about admission of PW.1 and noting of the injuries. The Experts who have treated the petitioner are not examined and the need for such a confinement in the hospital and the expenditure is not established. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts, it has to be held that the petitioner has failed to prove the genuineness and reliability of the credit bill Ex.A-3 and in view of the above circumstances, the lower Tribunal has rightly rejected the same. However, taking into consideration the age of the petitioner and also the nature of the treatment, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.1,50,000/- in stead of Rs.1,32,000/- as granted by the lower court. Accordingly, the Appeal is partly allowed. The appellant/petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/-towards total compensation in stead of Rs.1,32,000/- as granted by the lower court. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 29-10-2011 TSNR