This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal arises out of award dated 15.11.2005 in O.P.No.119 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Madanapalle (for short, "the Tribunal").

2. The appellant filed this appeal feeling partly aggrieved by the abovementioned award to the extent of the Tribunal disallowing his claim towards compensation.

3. I have heard Sri M. Venkatramana Reddy, learned counsel for the appellant. There is no representation for respondent No.1 in spite of service of notice. Despite service of notice, Sri B. Devanand, learned counsel, who entered appearance for respondent No.4, is not present. Though respondent No.3 is not served, the learned counsel for the appellant stated that no relief is claimed against her and therefore non-service of notice on her is inconsequential.

4. The appellant was the driver of lorry bearing registration No. AP 03 T 9625 owned by respondent No.3. The said lorry is insured with respondent No.4. Respondent No.1 is the owner of lorry bearing registration No. AP 03 W 657, which was insured with respondent No.2. On 22.07.2002, at about 11.00 a.m., the lorry driven by the appellant collided with the lorry owned by respondent No.1 near Mouza Hajra on NH7 road. The appellant received severe injuries and was admitted to Medical College Hospital, Nagpur. His case is that after receiving treatment for some time, he got himself discharged against medical advice and has taken treatment from Dr. M. Sanjeeva Rayudu of Madanapalle and that later he has taken treatment as an inpatient in the hospital owned by Dr. K. Viswakiran Reddy, who was examined as PW.2, from 16.12.2002 to 29.01.2003 and as out-patient from 29.01.2003 till April, 2003. The appellant claimed that he has suffered permanent disability to the extent of 20% and has incurred expenses towards purchase of medicines to a tune of Rs. 51,032=24 ps apart from paying fees of Rs. 40,000/- to PW.2.

5. The Tribunal has framed three issues. Issue No.1 relating to rash and negligent driving was later amended. Under the said issue, the Tribunal found that the vehicle owned by respondent No.1 was driven in a rash and negligent manner and was responsible for causing of the accident. As regards the compensation under issue No.2, the Tribunal rejected the plea of the appellant that he suffered physical disability to the extent of 20%, while rejecting the bunch of medical bills filed through Ex.A7 for Rs.51,032=24 ps., and awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards medical expenses and granted Rs. 12,500/- towards compensation for grievous fracture injury and Rs. 22,500/- for pain and suffering.

6. At the hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the Tribunal fell into serious errors in rejecting the opinion of PW.2 regarding the nature of permanent disability, rejecting the medical bills on the one hand and not granting Rs. 40,000/- paid towards the doctor's fee on the other.

7. A perusal of the reasons contained in the award of the Tribunal shows that it rejected the medical bills marked under Ex.A7 on the ground that the person, who is connected with issuance of medical bills, was not examined. I am afraid this approach of the Tribunal cannot be appreciated. It is not the case of the respondents that the appellant has produced fake medical bills. Curiously, while refusing to accept Ex.A7, the Tribunal has awarded Rs. 40,000/- towards medical expenses. This clearly shows that the Tribunal is conscious of the fact that the injury suffered by the appellant, which is described by it as grave, required medical expenditure. The Tribunal has not given any reason for restricting the medical expenses to Rs. 40,000/- as against the sum of Rs. 51,032=24 ps claimed by the appellant under Ex.A7 bills. Similarly, the Tribunal has adopted a pedantic approach in not believing the evidence of PW.2 Orthopaedic Surgeon that he has received Rs. 40,000/- on the ground that he failed to produce the registers and