HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No. 231 of 2001 Date: 31-01-2011 Between: Narayana Chowdhary ……… Appellant and Talada Suri Ramu and others ……….. Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B. PRAKASH RAO AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE P. DURGA PRASAD L.P.A.No. 231 of 2001 ORDER: (Per BPR, J) This Appeal, at the instance of the claimant, is filed under Section 15 of the Letter Patent, inter alia, seeking to assail the correctness of the order, dated 20-01-2001 in A.A.O.No.1539 of 1995 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court. The brief facts of the case are that on 24-07-1985 at about 7-00 PM, while the claimant as the pillion rider, and his uncle were travelling from Palasa on a motor cycle bearing No.AP Q 2896 to their native place Srinivasapuram, an Ambassador car bearing No.ABT 8077, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, came in the opposite direction and dashed against the motor cycle, due to which the claimant and his uncle sustained multiple grievous injuries. Therefore, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Srikakulam, claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. The O.P. was contested before the Tribunal, wherein the claimant examined himself as PW-1 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-8, whereas no oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. Considering the said evidence, the Tribunal has awarded the compensation of Rs.30,000/- with interest from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Aggrieved thereby, the claimant carried the matter to this Court and a learned single Judge of this Court once again appreciated the evidence and the factum of the claimant suffering 50% disability and enhanced the compensation by Rs.15,000/-. Aggrieved thereby, the claimant filed this Appeal seeking further enhancement of the compensation. Though several contentions are sought to be urged in this Appeal claiming further enhancement apart from contending that there is no proper appreciation of evidence, which has been produced by the claimant, however, the fact remains that except the sole testimony of the claimant and marking the document through him, no other evidence has been produced in support with regard to the factum of injuries and disability. It is well established by this Court that any aspect as to the injuries suffered and the extent of disability has to be mandatorily proved only by examining the relevant witnesses but not otherwise and no evidence, even if documentary, would be of no importance unless and until the concerned doctor is examined and the aspect is properly proved. In this case no such evidence is forthcoming. Therefore, in the absence of such evidence, it is very difficult to accept the claim as sought for by the claimant-appellant. There are no merits nor any substantial question of law is involved in this Appeal. Accordingly, the Letter Patent Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. _________________ B. PRAKASH RAO, J __________________ P. DURGA PRASAD, J Date: 31-01-2011 YCR