Compensation awarded by Tribunal was reassessed.

Challenging the award dated 10.07.2003 in O.P.No.647 of 2001 passed by the Chairman, M.A.C.T-cum-District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry (for short the Tribunal), the claimant preferred the instant appeal.

2) The factual matrix of the case is thus:

a) The case of the claimant is that on 14.08.2001 at about 3:00am, he was proceeding on his cycle on Gowthami Bridge to Jonnada junction along with vegetables and when he reached near Gowthami Bridge, Ravulapalem, one lorry bearing No.AIC 5040 came in opposite direction being driven by its driver/1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner without blowing horn and dashed him. Thereby, the claimant fell on the road and sustained fracture to right and left leg thighs, injury on the chest and contusions all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Kothapeta and then to Government Headquarters Hospital, Rajahmundry and from there to Chaitanya Orthopedic Hospital, Tanuku, where his thighs were operated. It is averred that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the offending lorry. On these pleas, the claimant filed OP.No.647 of 2001 against respondents 1 to 3, who are the driver, owner and insurer of the offending lorry and claimed Rs.2,50,000/- as compensation under different heads mentioned in the O.P.

b) Respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte.

c) Respondent No.3/Insurance Company filed counter and opposed the claim, denying all the material averments made in the O.P and urged to put the claimant in strict proof of the same. R3 denied the age, avocation and income of the claimant. Finally it contended that the compensation claimed is highly excessive and exorbitant and prayed to dismiss the OP.

d) During trial P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A11 were marked on behalf of claimant. Policy copy filed by 3rd respondent was marked as Ex.B.1.

e) Perusal of the Award would show that Tribunal basing on the oral and documentary evidence has held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending lorry by its driver/R.1. Compensation is concerned, the Tribunal awarded Rs.22,000/- with costs and interest at 6% p.a from the date of O.P till the date of realization under different heads as below:

For three injuries Rs. 7,000/-

Medical expenditure Rs.15,000/-

__________

Total Rs.22,000/-

__________

Hence, the appeal by the claimant challenging the inadequacy of compensation.

3) Heard arguments of Sri A.Gopala Krishnamacharyulu, learned counsel for appellant/claimant and Smt. M. Bhaskara Lakshmi, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company. Case against respondents 1 and 2 was dismissed for default on 21.10.2008. However, since they remained ex parte and suffered decree before the Tribunal, their absence will not have any effect in this appeal in the light of decision reported in Meka Chakra Rao vs. Yelubandi Babu Rao @ Reddemma and others.

4) Impugning the award, learned counsel for appellant argued that the claimant suffered fracture of thigh bones of both legs and he also suffered the consequent disability. Besides, he spent about Rs.44,000/- for his treatment. Inspite of it, on a wrong appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal granted only meager compensation on the observation that the claimant failed to prove his disability whatsoever and he also failed to prove the medical expenditure by examining the doctor who treated him. Learned counsel argued that going by the fact that the petitioner suffered fracture to both thigh bones, the Tribunal ought to have granted reasonable compensation irrespective of petitioners failure to examine the treatment doctor as he was a poor vegetable vendor. He thus prayed to allow the appeal and enhance the compensation.

5) Per contra while supporting the award, learned counsel for respondent No.3/Insurance Company argued that the petitioner by non-examining the doctor who treated him in a private hospital, failed to prove the nature of