Challenging the compensation awarded in O.P.No.1730 of 2002 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal–cum–I Additional District Judge, Nizamabad (for short, 'the Tribunal') as excessive, the National Insurance Company Limited filed the instant M.A.C.M.A.

2. The factual matrix of the case is thus:

a) The 1st respondent in this appeal is the claimant before the Tribunal. On 23-12-2001 at about 6.30 p.m. while he was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 25 T 475 along with some others from Nizamabad to Arsapally and when their auto reached Omkar Rice Mill at about 6.30 p.m., one Tata Sumo bearing No. AP 09 R 4665 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver at high speed and in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the auto and caused the accident. In the resultant accident, the claimant suffered fracture to his right leg apart from other injuries. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Headquarter's Hospital, Nizamabad, where operation was performed and his right leg above knee was amputated. After discharge, the claimant pleaded, he took treatment in some other private hospitals by incurring medical expenditure of Rs.3,00,000/-. His further case was that prior to accident, he was working as Hamali in a rice mill and earning Rs.10,000/- p.m. besides earning Rs.8,000/- p.m. by doing paddy business. Thus, he was earning Rs.18,000/- p.m. Due to amputation of right leg, the claimant pleaded that he is not able to do any work now and suffered loss of earnings besides suffering physical disability. The claimant averred that the driver of Tata Sumo was responsible for the accident. On all these pleas, the claimant filed O.P.No.1730 of 2002 claiming Rs.15,00,000/- as compensation under different heads against respondents 1 and 2 who are owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

b) The 1st respondent remained ex parte and the 2nd respondent-insurance company filed counter and opposed the claim on various grounds.

c) During trial, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A6 and Ex.C1 were marked on behalf of claimant. Policy copy filed by 2nd respondent was marked as Ex.B1.

d) Perusal of the award shows that having regard to the evidence of P.W.1-the claimant and Ex.A.1-F.I.R. and Ex.A.2- Charge Sheet, the Tribunal held that the driver of the Tata Sumo was responsible for the accident.

e) Regarding compensation, the Tribunal, having regard to Ex.A.5-Disability Certificate issued by District Medical Board, Nizamabad, whereunder the claimant suffered 80% permanent disability, fixed compensation under different heads as follows:

S.No. Head of Compensation Amount Rs.

(i) Compensation for disability 6,91,200-00

(ii) Compensation for pain and suffering 50,000-00

(iii) Compensation for future loss of earnings 1,00,000-00

(iv) Compensation for medical expenses and transportation charges 50,000-00

TOTAL 8,91,200-00

Thus, the Tribunal awarded total compensation of Rs.8,91,200/- with proportionate costs and interest at 7.5% p.a. from the date of O.P. till the date of deposit.

Hence, the appeal by the insurance company.

3. Heard Sri K.Subba Rao, learned counsel for appellant and Sri L.Dayakar Reddy, learned counsel for 1st respondent.

4. Now, the point for determination is:

“Whether the award of the Tribunal is legally and factually sustainable”?

5. POINT: Learned counsel for appellant challenged the quantum of compensation as excessive on two grounds. Firstly, he argued that the Tribunal erred in placing implicit reliance on Ex.A5 Disability Certificate and accepting the disability of claimant as 80%, though no doctor from the Medical Board who issued Ex.A5 was examined by the claimant in proof of its authenticity. Learned counsel argued that in order to prove the disability certificate, concerned doctor who issued it must be examined. On this point, he relied upon the decision rendered in Rajesh Kumar @ Raju Vs. Yudhvir Singh & Another (2009 (1) ALD 21 SC). He further submitted that on the face of Ex.A5, it was clearly mentioned that the same wa