THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO C.M.A.No.3376 of 2003 JUDGMENT: Being aggrieved by the order and decree dated 22.11.2002 in O.P.No.38 of 1998 on the file of the District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy, the present appeal is filed by the claimant in the O.P. Learned counsel for the appellant urged that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is very meagre and the Tribunal without taking into consideration the gravity of injuries sustained by the injured granted only meagre compensation, which is erroneous and in support of his contention, he placed reliance on Ex.A.4 wound certificate. In support of his arguments, he also draws the attention of the Court to the decision reported in Yadava Kumar v Divisional Manager, National Insurance Company Limited and another[1] and urged that Court must be liberal in determination of quantum of compensation. Now, the point for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? It was not disputed about the accident. The injured while examining himself as PW.1, also examined the doctor as PW.2 and filed Ex.15 - (16) bunch of medical bills. Ex.A.10 the disability certificate to prove the disability of the injured. However, PW.2 is examined to prove the injuries. According to PW.2 Dr.Vijaya Rama Rao, Professor in Orthopaedic in Gandhi Medical College, who examined the injured on 13.11.1997 as out patient at Sathya Kidney Centre, Hyderabad, opined that the injured had brachial plexus injuries on right side, and also had a fracture clavicle on the right side and he was initially treated at Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad according to the discharge ticket. In view of the evidence of PW.2, he neither attended the patient nor treated the patient. His evidence only basing on his examination of patient on 13.11.1997 at Sathya Kidney Centre, Hyderabad ie. after five months of the accident. But, however, he asserted that he advised the patient to go for physiotherapy and that fracture clavicle is united. He also opined that the disability is permanent, and the injured will not be able to use the right upper limb for any work. Ex.A.7 is the O.P. card issued by Satya Kidney Centre, Hyderabad. While taking into consideration the evidence of PW.2 it can be said without any hesitation that the injury sustained by the injured is a grievous injury to his right upper limb and the said disability is permanent in nature. The counsel during the course of arguments submitted that the non- examination of doctor who issued medical certificate will not effect the rights of the claimant to claim compensation for the injury sustained by him. In my view, the aforesaid submission is without any reasoning. In a case of this nature when the injuries sustained are grievous in nature, it is for the injured to prove the injuries through medical evidence. Unless the doctor, who treated the patient is examined the gravity of the injuries cannot be taken into account for arriving a just and reasonable compensation. The burden is on the injured. Unless he discharged the burden in proving the injuries, the plea of the injured that non-examination of the doctor who issued the certificate is not fatal, cannot be swallowed by any stretch of imagination. A perusal of the claim petition, nowhere it is mentioned that PW.1 sustained the injury. For the reasons best known to the claimant he did not mention the details of the accident. However, the Tribunal while taking into consideration the evidence of PW.2 coupled with the evidence of PW.1 granted compensation under different heads. As seen from the wound certificate Ex.A.4, the petitioner sustained two fractures for which the Tribunal granted Rs.30,000/-. In view of the evidence of PW.2 granting of Rs.50,000/- against the said grant of Rs.30,000/- towards two fractures is just and reasonable. The petitioner filed Ex.A.15 medical bills for Rs.3,357/- and the Tribunal accordingly granted the compensation. However, since PW.2 had taken the treatment in private nursing home an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be granted against the grant of Rs.3,357/-. The Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.9,150/- towards compensation under the head of conveyance charges. There is no evidence on that score. I do not know how the Tribunal granted such amount when there is no claim and evidence. When Ex.A.14 - (16) RTC bus tickets for Rs.91.50ps. were filed, an amount of Rs.9,150/- was granted towards compensation under the head of conveyance charges. However, since the respondents’ counsel did not dispute the same and there is no cross appeal. I see no grounds to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the amount of compensation is enhanced from Rs.30,000/- to Rs.50,000/- towards the injuries sustained by PW.1, and an amount of Rs.1,600/- towards medicines. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realisation. With the above enhancement and modification, the appeal is partly allowed. No costs. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 10th March,2011 PNV [1] (2010) 10 Supreme Curt Cases 341