All these three appeals arise out of the Common award dated 16-08-1999 passed by the Motor Vehicles Accidents Claims Tribunalcum-I Addl. District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at Saroornagar, hence they are being disposed of by this common judgment.

2. CMA No.164 of 2000 is filed against the award in O.P. No. 339 of 1997. CMA No.1257 of 2000 is filed against the award in O.P. No.345 of 1997 and CMA No.1281 of 2000 is filed against the award in O.P. No. 340 of 1997.

3. By the impugned common award, the Tribunal granted a sum of Rs.10,000/- as against the claim of Rs. 80,000/- in O.P. No.339 of 1997, a sum of Rs.15,000/-, as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- in O.P. No.345 of 1997 and a sum of Rs.15,000/- as against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- in O.P. No.340 of 1997 with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till date of deposit, with proportionate costs. Dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal, the claimants in the respective OPs have filed these appeals seeking enhancement of compensation

4. The facts stated are thus:

On the intervening night of 4/5-11-1996,the claimants-appellants herein along with others were returning in a jeep to Sadashivpet after attending marriage at Hyderabad and at that time a lorry bearing registration No. AP 9T 2465 came in the opposite direction in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the jeep in which the claimants were travelling, due to the impact of the accident, the claimants received injuries and they were hospitalized.

5. It is stated that the claimant in O.P. No.339 of 1997 received injuries to his waist and filed copy of the X-ray report of CDR hospital EX.A-6 and EX.A-7 medical prescriptions. He also filed disability certificate issued by P.W.5 Doctor. According to P.W.5, the claimant sustained 35% permanent partial disability due to mal-united facture.

6. It is stated that the claimant in O.P. No.345 of 1997 sustained injuries to her abdom in, legs and other parts of the body and she was treated in Gandhi Hospital for 20 days. She filed EX.A-20 copy of the O.P. ticket issued by the Gandhi Hospital to show that she was in hospital for 13 days undergoing treatment. EX.A-20 is the disability certificate issued by P.W.5 Doctor. According to P.W.5, the claimant sustained 50% permanent partial disability due to mal-united fracture and dislocation of vertibra.

7. It is stated that the claimant in O.P. No.340 of 1997 sustained fracture injuries and she was treated in Gandhi Hospital for a month. She filed Exs.A-11 and A-12 copies of the O.P. ticket issued by the Gandhi Hospital to show that she was in hospital for a month undergoing treatment. According to P.W.5 Doctor, the claimant sustained 50% permanent partial disability due to fracture.

8. The Tribunal basing on the respective pleadings, framed necessary issues. As regards the culpability in causing the accident, the Tribunal, on evidence, held that the· accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the accident lorry by its driver and inasmuch as No appeal is filed either by the driver of the accident lorry or by the and respondent-insurance company, the said finding became final and no interference is warranted.

9. Now the point remains to be considered is as to the adequacy or otherwise of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

10. Mr. K.L.N. Rao, learned counsel for the appellants strenuously contended that the Tribunal grossly erred in not considering the disability certificate issued by P.W.5 doctor certifying the disability sustained by the claimants. Learned counsel further contends that any qualified doctor can assess the loss of disability vis-a-vis earning capacity, as is done in this case, and the exception taken by the Tribunal that the doctor who has actually treated the claimants was not examined cannot be fatal to the case of the claimants. In support of this contention, learned counsel relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court