* THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU +M.A.C.M.A.No.2091 of 2009 % 29.11.2010 # 1. National Insurance Company Ltd., Represented by its Divisional Manager, Divisional Office-1, Bank Street, Koti, Hyderabad. … Appellant Vs. $Ahmed Ali @ Mohd Ali and another … Respondents ! Counsel for the Appellant: Smt A.Jayanthi Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr Mohd Yousuf < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: 1. 2003 (5) ALD 162 2. 2010 (2) ALT 229 3. 2008 (4) Supreme Today 291 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2091 of 2009 JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) Mahabubnagar by award dated 04.04.2007 in O.P.No.645 of 2002, the Insurance Company filed this Appeal. It is stated that Insurance Company obtained requisite permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the lower Tribunal at the appropriate stage. The lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.59,500/- to the injured/claimant/first respondent for injuries sustained by him in the accident. There is no dispute about factum of accident and about driver of the accident vehicle driving the same in rash and negligent manner. The lower Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1500/- for each of the five simple injuries, Rs.15,000/- for one grievous injury, Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.17,000/- towards laprotomy surgery, extra nourishment, medical bills and transport to hospital and Rs.10,000/- towards loss of income for ten months, totaling Rs.59,500/-. Placing reliance on UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs MOHD. KHAJ RASOOL SAYYED[1] of this Court, the appellant’s counsel contended that no reliance can be placed on any medical record placed by the injured in the absence of examining the doctor who issued the said records and without proof of nature of injuries by the doctor who certified the same. On the other hand, the first respondent’s counsel placing reliance on NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs KORUKONDA APPA RAO[2] of this Court contended that the Wound Certificate which was marked without objection by the other side can be relied upon in order to ascertain nature of injuries sustained by the injured. In my opinion, a clear distinction should be made between private documents and public documents. In case an injured took treatment from any private hospital and filed private medical hospital bills, then they have to be proved by examining the doctor or authorities relating to that private hospital. In case there is disability certified by any doctor whether a private doctor or a Government doctor or a Medical Board, then the disability has to be proved in accordance with RAJESH KUMAR @ RAJU vs YUDHVIR SINGH AND ANR[3] of the Supreme Court by examining the doctor who issued the said Certificate in order to substantiate percentage of disability certified therein with reasons. But, in the case of a Wound Certificate issued by a Government Hospital or a Government General Hospital, it is only an extract of accident Register maintained by that Government hospital in the Causality Department. It being a public document, it can be relied upon to the extent of details of injuries and their nature, even without examining the doctor who issued the same, unless there are suspicious features attached to it and necessary suspicion is proved to exist in issuing such certificate. In the case on hand, Ex.A2 attested copy of Wound Certificate was issued by the Government Hospital and it was marked without any objection during evidence of the injured as PW1 before the lower Tribunal. In case Ex.A2 is also to be proved by examining the Medical Officer who issued the same, then it may lead to further absurd consequences by extending the same principle even to copies of First Information Report and Charge Sheet to the effect that they have to be proved by examining author of First Information Report and the Investigating Officer who filed the charge sheet. As per Ex.A2 Wound Certificate, the injured sustained five simple injuries and one grievous injury to the abdomen. The lower Tribunal rightly granted compensation at the rate of Rs.1500/- for each simple injury and Rs.15,000/- for one grievous injury. When specific amounts were granted for simple and grievous injuries, then the question of granting further amount of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering does not arise at all. Compensation is awarded to injuries because the injured suffered pain and suffering. The injured did not lead any medical evidence to show that he underwent laprotomy surgery, by examining the doctor. The injured filed Ex.A5 bunch of original medical bills amounting to Rs.1766/-. The injured is entitled for reimbursement of amount covered by Ex.A5 medical bills. In the absence of proof of laprotomy surgery, the injured is not entitled for any compensation amount for undergoing the said surgery. The injured can be awarded compensation of Rs.2000/- for extra nourishment and Rs.1000/- for transport. Having regard to nature of injuries, loss of income of the injured has to be limited for one month instead of ten months and it comes to Rs.1000/-. Thus, total compensation amount comes to Rs.28,266/-. In opinion of this Court, the said amount is just compensation. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed altering compensation amount payable to the first respondent/injured from Rs.59,500/-to Rs.28,266/-. No costs. ___________________________ SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU,J DT.29.11.2010 LR copy to be marked lvl THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU M.A.C.M.A.No.2091 of 2009 Dt 29.11.2010 [1] 2003 (5) ALD 162 [2] 2010 (2) ALT 229 [3] 2008 (4) Supreme Today 291