THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU C.M.A. No. 3546 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is directed against Order and Decree in O.P. No. 945 of 1999 dated 19.2.2003 on the file of learned Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, whereunder a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- was awarded to the petitioner therein. Respondent No.2 in O.P. 945 of 1999 is the appellant herein. Respondent No.1 herein is the petitioner who filed the said O.P. and respondent No.2 is the owner of the vehicle which was involved in the accident. For the purpose of convenience, the parties are arrayed as in O.P. No. 945 of 1999. The case of petitioner was that on 14.4.1999 while he was coming on his Luna bearing No. AAJ -9851 from Collectorate Chowk, Adilabad to Old Bus Stand, Adilabad, a Jeep bearing No. MH- 29/C-629, driven by its driver in rash and negligent manner and high speed, came in wrong side and in opposite direction and dashed against his Luna at about 10.15 p.m. Due to the said accident, he fell down on the road, received several internal and external injuries including fractures to his right tibia, fibula, head and his Luna was also damaged. He was immediately rushed to Government Hospital, Adilabad, where he took first aid and later underwent treatment as inpatient for 9 days in Dr. Phadke Hospital, Yavatmal, where 10 stitches were made to head injury, rods were inserted in his right leg and surgery was conducted. Thus, he incurred an expenditure of Rs.25,000/- for treatment of injuries sustained by him. The Police, Traffic, Adilabad registered a case in Cr.No.30/99 under Section 338 IPC against the Jeep Driver. Further, he suffered loss of pay and depended on attendants. Thus, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/-. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte. Respondent No.2 – Insurance Company filed counter denying the occurrence of accident, the injuries said to have been sustained by the petitioner, the treatment said to have been undergone by the petitioner at different places etc. Respondent No.2 further denied that the person who drove the Jeep was having valid and subsisting driving licence, that the vehicle was roadworthy to ply and it was insured with respondent No.2-Insurance Company. It was stated that the petitioner himself was negligent in driving Luna and was responsible for the accident. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal framed the following issues for trial: “1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in the accident that occurred on 14.4.99 due to rash and negligent driving of Jeep No.MH-29/C-629 or Luna No.AAJ-9851 by its drivers? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief?” On behalf of the petitioner, he himself was examined as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-21 were marked on his behalf. Whereas, none was examined, but Ex.B-1 was marked, on behalf of respondents. After considering both oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the driver of the Jeep No.MH-29/C-629 drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the accident due to which the petitioner sustained several injuries. In so far as the entitlement of the petitioner for compensation is concerned, the Tribunal, on a careful examination of the matter, came to the conclusion that the petitioner is entitled for Rs.30,000/- towards fracture injuries, Rs.28,107/- towards medical bills, Rs.1,08,000/- towards permanent disability, Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.1,729/- towards Luna repairs, thus to a total of Rs.1,72,836/-. However, since the claim of the petitioner was only to a tune of Rs.1,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- only with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Aggrieved by the said Order passed by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company filed this appeal. Heard both sides and perused the entire material made available on record. As seen from the evidence available on record, both oral and documentary, respondent No.1-petitioner was examined as PW-1 and Exs.A-1 to A-21 were marked in support of his claim. Ex.A-1 is the attested copy of FIR. Ex.A-2 is the Injury Certificate showing the injuries sustained by him. Ex.A-3 is the admission card and discharge- cum-referral slip. Ex.A-4 is the discharge card of Dr. Phadke Hospital. Ex.A-5 is the Permanent disability certificate. Ex.A-6 is the prescription slips issued by Dr. Phadke. Ex.A-7 is the Pathalogy reports. Ex.A-8 is the (12) treatment charges bills for Rs.11,340/-. Ex.?A-9 is (25) medical bills for Rs.12,403-67ps. Ex.A-10 is (3) bills pertaining to repair charges of Luna for Rs.1,729/-. Ex.A-11 is the driving licence. Ex.A-12 is the attested copy of Insurance Cover Note. Ex.A-13 is the attested copy of driving licence of Jeep driver. Ex.A-14 is the X-Ray films. Ex.A- 15 is (19) receipts pertaining to Jeep hire charges for Rs.19,000/-, Ex.A-16 is (9) medical bills for Rs.3,963-51ps. Ex. A-17 is (4) treatment receipts for Rs.400/-, Ex.A-18 is the Prescription. Ex.A-19 is the Permanent disability certificate. Ex.A-20 is the Photo of injured person and Ex.A-21 is X-Ray film. Thus, apart from the oral evidence of PW-1, there is clinching documentary evidence in the shape of Exs.A-1 to A-21 to come to the conclusion that respondent No.1-petitioner had sustained several injuries in the accident that occurred on 14.4.1999 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep No.MH-29/C-629. Further, considering the age, occupation, earning capacity and other relevant factors, the Tribunal has rightly granted compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is with regard to the finding of the Tribunal as to the permanent disability of respondent No.1 – petitioner. He contended that the medical officer was not examined in support of Exs.A-5 and A- 19. It was the primary duty of respondent No.1 to examine the Medical Officer who issued Exs.A-5 and A-19. In the absence of the same, the Tribunal ought not to have recorded the finding that respondent No.1 – petitioner suffered 30% permanent disability. However, on a careful consideration of the matter, it is found that those two certificates – Exs.A-5 and A-19 - were issued by a Medical Officer at Yavatmal, Maharashtra where the petitioner had undergone operation as well as treatment. In a case of this nature, it is difficult for the claimant to examine such medical officer from a different State. Adilabad being a bordering State, the claimant might have preferred to undergo treatment in Yavatmal of Maharashtra State, where medical facilities are available. Merely because the Doctor was not examined in a case of this nature, it cannot be said that Exs.A-5 and A-19 cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose deciding the percentage of disability suffered by the claimant. Further, the issuance of those certificates and the fractures suffered by the claimant are not in dispute. Under those circumstances, the findings recorded by the Tribunal as to permanent disability and other aspects cannot be said to be either arbitrary or illegal and, therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal does not call for any interference under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The C.M.A. is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. It is accordingly dismissed. JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU. Date: 03-3-2010. MVB.