THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2011 JUDGMENT: This appeal is filed against the award in O.P.No.974 of 1998 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District Judge) (FTC), Nizamabad, dismissing the claim of the petitioner for compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, when injuries received in a motor accident. 2. The allegations in the petition go to show that the petitioner is a driver of the jeep bearing No.API-7078 and on 4.9.1998 when he was proceeding in his jeep to Hyderabad from Armoor along with some others and in the mid night when the jeep reached in front of Hindustan Seed Lever Company within the limits of Kandlakoya village on National Highway No.7, a lorry bearing No.UP-70K-9174 came at high speed in the opposite direction driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep, as a result of which, the jeep was completely damaged and the petitioner and others received injuries. The petitioner claims that the spent money towards treatment. The first respondent is the owner and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company and they jointly and severely liable to pay the compensation. 3. 1st respondent remained exparte. 4. 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the nature of the incident and putting the petitioner to strict proof of the same, that the nature of the injuries received by the petitioner and the validity of the insurance are also disputed. 5. On considering the rival contentions and evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2 and Exs.A.1 to A.5 and Exs.B.1 and B.2, the lower Tribunal accepted that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry. But, however, the Tribunal dismissed the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner has not proved that he received the injuries. 6. The point that arises for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation and if so, to what amount? 7. In this case, the petitioner who is the driver of the jeep himself lodged the complaint and the complaint clearly goes to show that the occupants of the jeep received injuries. It also shows that the jeep was also damaged. He relied on the evidence of P.W.2 who claimed to be examined the petitioner on 17.11.1999 and he found that post traumatic stiffness of the left ankle restricting its movements and for that he has issued 25% permanent partial disability to the petitioner. The petitioner also relied upon Exs.A.3 and A.4 which are medical certificates and medical bills. The lower Tribunal has taken into consideration that the charge sheet does not show that the petitioner received injuries, but the fact remains that the complaint was given by the petitioner and he specifically stated that he sustained injuries. Even if the evidence of P.W.2 and the certificates are to be ignored, the fact remains that due to the accident which has occurred during the night time, the petitioner being the driver of the jeep must have suffered shock and pain. Even if there are visible injuries, it has to be considered by the lower Tribunal. Therefore, in view of the circumstances, mere because the factum of injuries were not proved or mentioned in the charge sheet, the factum of shock due to the accident, he being sustained in a motor accident, I feel the ends of justice would meet if the compensation of Rs.15,000/- is granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is entitled to the interest at 6% p.a from the date of the petition till date of award. 8. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ___________________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J Date:03.11.2011. Gk THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2752 of 2011 Date: 03.11.2011 Gk.