IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.765 of 2005 Between: Sontakki Laxmi .. Appellant AND Nagulapally Kishan & another .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.765 of 2005 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award in O.P.No.106 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- V Additional District Judge, Nizamabad, dated 22.12.2004. 2. The appellant/claimant was travelling in auto No. AP 25T 6813 on 25.05.1999 at about 6.00 p.m. and the tractor No.AP 25D 2239, driven rashly and negligently, dashed against the auto near Roddayam Shivar of Padgal Village. The claimant claimed to have suffered injuries on the back and head and grievous injuries all over the body for which she was treated at Government Hospital, Armoor. She claimed to have sustained a permanent disability and to have incurred Rs.20,000/- towards medical expenditure. She claimed to be earning Rs.3,000/- per month at the age of 50 years and estimated the compensation payable at Rs.12,21,500/-, but limited the claim to Rs.1,00,000/-. 3. While the owner of the tractor remained ex parte before the Tribunal, the insurer contested the claim denying the allegations of the claimant and contending that the driver of the tractor is a necessary party to the claim. It also contended that the claimant was travelling in the goods vehicle and is not entitled to any compensation. 4. The Tribunal framed issues about the responsibility for the accident and the entitlement of the claimant to compensation. 5. During the course of enquiry, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A-1 to A-29 were marked. 6. The Tribunal rendered the impugned award firstly accepting the evidence of the injured P.W.1 corroborated by Ex.A-1-First Information Report, Ex.A-6-Charge Sheet and other documents and concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor driver, more so, in the absence of any rebuttal evidence for the respondents. The Tribunal in assessing the compensation noted that Ex.A-5-Injury Certificate issued by the Government Hospital, Armoor, showed only one simple injury of an abrasion on the back for which the claimant was treated as an out patient. The documents produced by P.W.1 in Exs.A-7 to A-24 about the treatment in a private hospital and expenses incurred, therefore, were not believed by the Tribunal in the absence of examination of the doctor concerned or the author of the documents. The documents appearing to be fresh and new was also noted and in the absence of any trustworthy and cogent evidence about the multiplicity of injuries received by the claimant, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.3,000/- towards pain and suffering for one simple injury with interest at 9% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of realization and proportionate costs. 7. The claimant being aggrieved by the meagre compensation awarded, approached this Court with this appeal contending that in fact, a claim of Rs.12,21,500/- was restricted to Rs.1,00,000/- due to financial constraints and the internal injuries suffered by the claimant were not noted by the Government doctor. At least, the no fault liability sum of Rs.25,000/- should have been granted and in the absence of any rebuttal evidence for the respondents, the entire compensation as claimed should have been granted. 8. Heard Sri J. Siddaiah, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned standing counsel for the second respondent/insurer. The first respondent/owner of the vehicle remained unrepresented before this Court. 9. The finding of the Tribunal about the responsibility for the accident with the tractor driver due to his rash and negligent driving, the ownership of the vehicle with the first respondent and its subsisting insurance with the second respondent are not challenged by any party and the findings have become final. 10. The only question left is the quantum of just and adequate compensation payable by both the respondents jointly and severally to the appellant/claimant. 11. The only evidence on record in support of the claimant is that of the claimant herself as P.W.1 and the same being tainted with interestedness, it is safe to look for some independent corroboration to her claims. The earliest version in Ex.A-1-First Information Report only shows about the claimant suffering some injuries and Ex.A-2-Panchanama also mentioned about the claimant suffering some bleeding injuries. The Medical Officer of the Government Civil Hospital, Armoor, who had seen the injured immediately after the accident had noted the claimant to have suffered only one simple abrasion on the back. Even Ex.A-6-Charge Sheet clearly stated that the injuries suffered by the claimant were certified by the Medical Officer in the Government Hospital, Armoor, as simple and the accused driver was prosecuted only for causing simple hurt to the claimant under Section 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. Exs.A-7 to A-14- Prescriptions do not indicate for treatment of what injuries or for rectification of what ailment the various medicines were prescribed thereunder and similarly, Ex.A-15-Receipt also did not indicate the purpose for which the doctor was consulted or investigations were done or the room charges and nursing charges were collected. The receipts for purchase of medicines in Exs.A-16 to A-24 also throw no light on the purpose for which these medicines were purchased and used. P.W.1 stated that she received grievous and simple injuries on the back, left fore arm and other parts of the body and she even went to the extent of claiming that she did not even go to the Government Hospital after the accident, but went only to the private hospital. In the absence of probablisation of any link between Exs.A-7 to A-24 and the injuries claimed to have been suffered by P.W.1 and in the face of the Government Doctor at the hospital at Armoor noting only one simple abrasion on the back on examination immediately after the accident on the claimant being brought to him by the police, the Tribunal cannot be considered to have gone wrong in not acting upon the exaggerated and inflated claims of the claimant unsupported by any evidence or the contents of the documents Exs.A-7 to A-24 or the evidence of any doctor who treated the claimant at the private hospital. For the simple abrasion on the back, grant of a sum of Rs.3,000/- under all heads of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages cannot be considered conservative and under the circumstances, the appeal cannot succeed. 12. In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 24th March, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD M.A.C.M.A. No.765 of 2005 Date: 24th March, 2011 KL