THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V. SEETHAPATHY MACMA No.69 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: 1 This appeal is directed against the order dated 09.09.2008 in OP No.724 of 2004 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (VIII Additional District Judge) Nizamabad wherein the said claim filed by the appellants was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a. from the date of filing of the petition. 2 Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation. Perused the record. 3 The appellants filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for the injuries sustained by the first claimant in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 07.07.2003. Second appellant is the wife and claimants 3 and 4 are the sons of the deceased-first claimant. According to them on 07.07.2003 while the deceased was standing at the bus station, Kamareddy, the bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 1903 belonging to APSRTC came at high speed and driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased caused fracture of right femur and other injuries. It is further averred that the deceased was admitted in Sri Venkateswara Nursing Home, Hyderabad and he spent Rs.3 lakhs for medical treatment. According to the claimants the deceased was aged 55 years and was earning Rs.15,000/- per month from cultivation. It is stated that subsequently the deceased died due to renal failure. The Respondent-RTC filed a written statement opposing the claim and denying their liability. 4 The Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: i. Whether the accident has taken place due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle bearing No.AP 11 Z 1903 by its driver? ii. Whether the Petitioner is entitled for compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? iii. To what relief? 5 During the enquiry, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A.1 to A.21 were marked on behalf of the claimants. On behalf of the Respondent – Corporation R.W.1 was examined, but no documents were marked. 6 On a consideration of the material available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus AP 11 Z 1903 by its driver. The Tribunal further held that the claimants are entitled for compensation of Rs.40,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of realization. Not satisfied with the said award, the claimants preferred the present appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 7 The learned counsel for the appellants / claimants would contend that the claimants have spent more than Rs.3 lakhs alone for the medical expenses in connection with the treatment of the fracture injury at Sri Venkateswara Nursing Home and subsequently for the renal failure at Satya Kidney Centre, Hyderabad. He would further contend that the Tribunal erred in awarding only Rs.25,000/- towards medical expenses even though bunch of medical bills – Ex.A.6 show that the claimants incurred an expenditure of Rs.70,571/-. He would further contend that Exs.A.11 to A.19 would show that the deceased underwent treatment at Satya Kidney Centre for his renal problem, spending an amount of Rs.1,36,000/- and the same was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal. 8 The learned counsel for the Respondent-Corporation, on the other hand, submitted that the claimants have not examined any doctor of either of the hospitals to prove the nature of injuries or the treatment rendered to the deceased or the medical expenses incurred in connection with the alleged treatment. He would further contend that the treatment at Satya Kidney Centre has nothing to do with the accident inasmuch as the deceased sustained only a fracture injury in the accident and the subsequent renal failure has neither relevance nor connection with the accident. 9 As seen from the impugned award, except filing the hospital records and medical bills and documents pertaining to the treatment the claimants have not chosen to examine any doctor who treated the deceased either at Sri Venkateswara Nursing Home or at Satya Kidney Centre, Hyderabad. The claimants have not adduced any medical evidence to establish that the deceased sustained fracture injury in the accident and he underwent treatment for the said injury at Sri Venkateswara Nursing Home from 07.07.2003 to 22.07.2003 as alleged and in that connection he incurred expenditure of Rs.70,571/- covered by medical bills – Ex.A.6. The claimants have also not chosen to adduce any evidence to show that the subsequent renal failure, which ultimately led to the death of the deceased has any thing to do with the accident and that they are entitled for the medical expenditure incurred for the said treatment of renal failure also. Mere filing of the medical bills, without examining the concerned doctor of the hospital where the deceased is said to have undergone treatment would not suffice and it cannot be said that the claimants have established their claim pertaining to the medical expenses in connection with the treatment. 10 The learned counsel for the appellants seeks an opportunity to adduce necessary medical evidence in support of their claim relating to the treatment of the deceased. In these circumstances it is considered that an opportunity can be given to the claimants to adduce necessary medical evidence in support of their claim by remitting the matter back to the Tribunal. 11 The impugned award is accordingly set aside and the matter is remitted to the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad for fresh consideration after giving due opportunity to the both sides to adduce necessary further evidence they may chose to and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 12 The appeal is disposed of accordingly. ---------------------------- G.V. SEETHAPTHY, J. 10.06.2011 Kvsn