M.G. Nagarathna @ Rathna vs A. Srinivas and another

G.V. Seethapathy, J.—This appeal is directed against the order dated 15.9.2005 in OP No. 1667 of 2003 on the file of the MACT cum X Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein for compensation was allowed in part, awarding compensation of Rs. 16,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. Heard both sides. Perused the record.

The appellant herein filed claim application u/s 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation of Rs. 1,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 13.10.2002. According to the claimant, on that day, she along with other family members, was proceeding in Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 28 V 1124 from Malakpet, Hyderabad to Shiridi and on the way, at the outskirts of Pandaripur, on account of rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by its driver, dashed against a tree on the road side, resulting in injuries to the appellant and others. According to the claimant, she sustained fracture injuries and spent huge amounts for treatment and on account of the said injuries she is unable to do any work and that she was aged 55 years at the time of the accident.

The owner of the Tata Sumo remained ex parte. The insurer filed counter, opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation.

During the trial, PW 1 brother of the claimant was examined and Exs. A1 to A13 were marked on behalf of the claimant and RW 1 was examined and Exs. B1 to B4 were marked on behalf of the 2nd respondent-insurer.

On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred on account of the rash and negligent driving of the Tata Sumo by its driver. The said finding is not challenged by the 2nd respondent-insurer by filing any appeal. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for compensation of Rs. 16,000/- with interest at 9% per annum from the date of petition. Not satisfied with the said appeal, the claimants preferred the present appeal.

The Tribunal awarded Rs. 12,500/- towards fracture injury, Rs. 2,500/- towards pain and suffering, Rs. 500/- towards extra nourishment and Rs. 500/- towards transportation, making up a total of Rs. 16,000/-. Admittedly, the injured-claimant is not examined at all. The doctor, who treated her, was also not examined. The claimant''s brother was examined as PW 1. Learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that as the injured could not attend the Court, her brother was examined. Nothing prevented the claimant from taking steps to have her evidence recorded by the Advocate Commissioner. In the absence of evidence of the injured and also the doctor, the claim pertaining to the compensation on account of the injuries remains unsubstantiated. However, the insurer has not filed any appeal questioning the award. The discharge summary Ex. A5 and discharge bill Ex. A10 are not duly proved, as the claimant is also not examined. The Tribunal also held that the claimant has failed to adduce any evidence in proof of the injuries sustained by her and the treatment undergone and mere marking of the documents through the witness does not amount to proof of the document. However, as there was no serious challenge, the Tribunal has relied upon the documents filed by the claimant and awarded compensation as stated above, in view of the fact that the claimant sustained fracture injury in the accident.

In the circumstances, it is held that there are absolutely no valid or sufficient grounds for enhancement of the compensation, as there is no evidence on record justifying any enhancement. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.