HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.575 of 2008 Date: 24-6-2011 Between Abdul Quyyum … Appellant/Petitioner and Mohd. Sadiq and another … Respondents/Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.575 of 2008 Judgment: Despite service of notice, none appears for the respondents 1 and 2-owner of the lorry bearing No.AP9T-3215 and Insurance Company, respectively. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 01-11-2007 in O.P.No.1423 of 2006 on the file of the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge cum XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 4. The appellant herein is the injured claimant in O.P.No.1423 of 2006. The petitioner filed the said O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident on 13-02-2005. Before the tribunal below while the petitioner himself examined as P.W.1, examined Dr. S.Sreenivasa Reddy as P.W.2 and Dr. G.Subhash Rao as P.W.3 and filed Exs.A-1 to A-8. While evaluating the evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and the documentary evidence on record, the tribunal below awarded a compensation of Rs.35,000/- under all heads against the claim of Rs.2,00,000/-. Being aggrieved by the same, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant-claimant vehemently urged that the tribunal below without taking into consideration Ex.A-6 disability certificate awarded meager compensation of Rs.35,000/-, which is erroneous and stressed that the disability certificate issued by an Orthopaedic Surgeon can be taken as certificate as issued by the Medical Board and any amount of credence shall be given to Ex.A-6 but the tribunal below failed to consider Ex.A-6 disability certificate and awarded only meagre compensation. 6. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the appellant- claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation ? 7. Point:- P.W.1 is the injured in this case. P.Ws.2 and 3 are medical witnesses through whom Exs.A-3 to A-8 are marked. The factum of accident was not disputed. According to the injured P.W.1, immediately after the accident he was shifted to Vidyavidana Parishad hospital, Tandur, where he was treated initially and subsequently he was referred to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for further treatment and he was an inpatient there from 14- 02-2005 to 03-3-2005 and a surgery was conducted on 22-02-2005. Subsequently he took private treatment with Dr. Subash Rao, Orthopaedic Surgeon, for two months. 8. P.W.2 is Dr. S.Srinivasa Reddy, Associate Professor of Orthopaedic in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. According to him, the injured was admitted in the hospital on 13-02-2005 and was inpatient till 03-3-2005 and underwent operation for fracture of trochaic and left femur. He certified Ex.A-5 discharge summary issued by the hospital. He also certified that the injury sustained by the petitioner was grievous in nature and accordingly he marked Ex.X-1 case sheet. 9. P.W.3 is Dr. G.Subash Rao, Orthopaedic Surgeon, working in Basanth Sahani Hospital. He deposed that on 16-5-2005 he examined P.W.1 and noticed the following injury: Inter trochanter fracture left femur; and he treated the petitioner as outpatient. Earlier the patient underwent operation at Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad for his fracture and developed limping and shortening of left leg by one inch. He observed moderate stiffness of left hip with range of moments flexion 150 degrees, extension 20 degrees, abduction 10 degrees and adduction 10 degrees and united in medilisation of fracture fragment (Mal union). Because of the above problem, he cannot sit and squat as usual and he cannot walk for long distance and estimated 40% partial and permanent disability. He also certified that before issuing disability certificate he examined the petitioner clinically and radiologically. 10. During the course of cross-examination, he stated that X-ray was taken on 14-5-2007 as per his advice. But, in the chief-examination he stated that he had seen P.W.1 on 16-5-2005 and X-ray was taken on 14-5-2007. 11. As seen from the record, the injured was treated in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad nearly for 20 days and he was operated by conducting a surgery. He stated that that he had taken treatment with P.W.3 thereafter. But, a perusal of the evidence of P.W.3, nowhere it is mentioned that P.W.1 had taken continuous treatment from him except saying that P.W.1 was examined on 16-5-2005 and he was advised to take X-ray on 14-5-2007. 12. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant-claimant that Ex.A-6 disability certificate shall be taken into consideration while assessing the disability. 13. As stated already, it is an admitted fact that P.W.1 was treated by P.W.2 Associate Professor of Orthopaedic in Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. P.W.3 is another Orthopaedic Surgeon working in a private Nursing Home and there is no evidence on record that P.W.3 treated P.W.1. Moreover, P.W.1 approached P.W.3 only once for consultation. Had P.W.3 treated P.W.1 in his Nursing Home as inpatient certainly any amount of credence can be given to the testimony of P.W.3. In the absence of any documentary evidence that P.W.3 treated P.W.1 in his Nursing Home, much less as an inpatient, his evidence on the disability certificate Ex.A-6 cannot be taken, as gospel truth. 14. In any view of the matter, the document Ex.A-6 does not speak in full strength for its genuinity and the reason is obvious. The doctor who issued the disability certificate should first see that the disability noticed on the injured should be reasonably explained with supporting evidence. P.W.3 neither treated P.W.1 nor admitted him in the hospital. Therefore, Ex.A-6 document is not a piece of document to be placed reliance while assessing the disability of the injured in the circumstances of the case on hand. However, while taking into consideration the injury found on the person of P.W.1, further enhancement of Rs.10,000/- towards the said grievous injury is just and reasonable. 15. With this modification, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part, enhancing the compensation amount from Rs.35,000/- to Rs.45,000/- (Rupees forty five thousand only). No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 24th June, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.575 of 2008 24th June, 2011.