( 1 ) ALL these appeals are being heard along with other connected matters in view of the common question involved mainly whether in the case of injuries and for compensation therefor, in the absence of medical, oral evidence in support of the documents which include the certificates and bills etc. , can be accepted or relied on for the purpose of determining the quantum.

( 2 ) BEFORE proceeding to decide the question, it is necessary to delve into certain facts involved in these appeals.

( 3 ) C. M. A. No. 1760 of 1999 is at the instance of the insurance company which is aggrieved against the award of compensation under Section 166 (1) of the Motor Vehicles act read with 455 of the rules framed thereunder, awarding a compensation of rs. 2,00,000/-, with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the application fixing the liability jointly and severally against the insurance company and also the owner of the vehicle involved. On 19. 9. 1996, the claimant, who was working as a driver on the Jeep bearing No. AAA 1969 (T) was proceeding from Bellampalli to Manchiryal and when the Jeep reached near Bokkalagutta bus stage, suddenly a buffalo came across the road, the claimant took the vehicle to the left side of the road to avoid dash and in that attempt, the Jeep slipped and fell down since there was mud on the road due to rain and as a result of the accident, the claimant sustained injuries all over his body and fractures to his both legs. The other inmates of the Jeep also sustained injuries. The claimant was treated in Manchiryal Nursing home and later he was shifted to NIJMS at hyderabad. It is his case that still he is undergoing treatment. Since he has suffered disability due to the injuries and fractures sustained in the accident, he made a claim of Rs. 2,00,000/ -.

( 4 ) CONTESTING the claim, both the owner of the vehicle and insurance company denied the allegations and stated that the claimant, himself was responsible for the accident and therefore no liability can fastened on them apart from stating that the claim as made is quite excessive and arbitrary.

( 5 ) BASING on the pleadings of both the parties, the Court below framed the issues. During the trial, the claimant himself was examined as PW. l and got marked exs:a. l to A. 22. No evidence was adduced on behalf of the appellant or the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident.

( 6 ) CONSIDERING the evidence and material available on record, the Court below held that there was rash and negligence on the part of the claimant in the accident and further held that he is entitled to the sum as claimed and the liability of which was fixed jointly and severally both on the insurance company and the owner.

( 7 ) IN C. M. A. No. 1145 of 1999, the claimant is the appellant who seeks enhancement of the compensation aggrieved against the judgment and decree in O. P. No. 680 of 1997 dated 11. 1. 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-III Additional District Judge, Kurnool.

( 8 ) ACCORDING to the claimant, in the accident occurred on 14. 6. 1997 at about 6. 30 a. m. while he along with his brother were going on the left side on N. H. No. 18 near B. Tandrapadu Village, at that time the bus belonging to the respondent Corporation bearing No. AP9 Z 7952 which was driven in rash and negligent manner, came and dashed against him, as a result of which, he fell down and sustained injuries to his legs. He was treated at the Government hospital, kurnool from 14. 6. 1997 to 6. 9. 1997 as in- patient. The claimant was aged 15 years old and he was working as a coolie. Hence, the claim was for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/ -.

( 9 ) CONTESTING the claim of the claimant, the case of the respondent corporation was that there was no rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the bus and further the amount as claimed is wholly excessive and arbitrary.

( 10 ) DURING the trial, the claimant himself was examined as PW. 1 and his father was examined a