JUDGMENT

K. Lakshman, J. - Feeling aggrieved by the order, dated 26.08.2014, in M.V.O.P.No.1331 of 2012, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-XIV Additional Chief Judge (Fast Track Court), City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (for short 'the Tribunal'), the appellant - claimant preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

2. Vide the aforesaid order, the Tribunal has awarded an amount of Rs.3,29,325/- towards compensation to the appellant - claimant against both the respondents jointly and severally along with proportionate costs and interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization, as against the claim of Rs.7,00,000/- laid by the appellant - claimant for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident occurred on 01.12.2011.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant - claimant and the learned standing counsel for the 2nd respondent - Insurance Company.

4. On the analysis of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal gave a specific finding that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the crime vehicle. Admittedly, the respondents did not prefer any appeal challenging the said finding and therefore, the said finding attained finality.

5. Now, the only question that falls for consideration before this Court is with regard to quantum of compensation.

6. It is the specific contention of the appellant that he has sustained grievous injuries in the accident i.e., fracture to right leg both bones, crush injury to right foot, injury to right shoulder, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Sankhya Hospital, KPHB Colony, Hyderabad, for treatment and he was treated as inpatient from 01.12.2011 to 08.12.2011. Subsequently, he was admitted in Susheela Hospital and there he got operated. After discharge, he continued his treatment as out-patient and he spent an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- towards his hospitalization. In proof of the said injuries, he has examined P.W.2, the doctor who treated him, and also filed Ex.A-3 - Medico Legal Record, Ex.A-4 - Discharge summary, Ex.A-5 - Prescriptions, Ex.A-6 - Disability Certificate, Ex.A-7 - Original Estimation Certificate and Ex.A-9 - X-Ray Films.

7. On the analysis of the entire evidence, both oral and documentary, and also considering Ex.A-6 - Original Disability Certificate and deposition of P.W.2, the doctor who treated him and issued Ex.A-6 - Disability Certificate, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the disability of the appellant - claimant is 25%. But, however, the 2nd respondent - insurance company disputed that P.W.2, without following the procedure and without any basis, without conducting the tests properly, issued Ex.A-6 - Disability Certificate assessing the disability of the appellant - claimant as 25%. It is relevant to note that P.W.2 is a doctor and he is expert in the said field. On examination and on conducting certain relevant tests, he has issued Ex.A-6 - Disability Certificate. In the absence of contra evidence and more particularly, the 2nd respondent - insurance company failed to elicit anything from him during cross-examination, the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the disability of the appellant - claimant as 25% is reasonable and this Court is satisfied with the said reasoning. The Tribunal can disagree with the opinion of the doctor by giving reasons. But, in the present case, there is no evidence much less convincing evidence to differ with the opinion of the doctor in the Tribunal and in this Court. Therefore, the disability of the appellant can be considered as 25%.

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the claimant that the appellant - claimant sustained grievous injuries in the accident that is fracture to right leg both bones, crush injury to right foot, injury to right shoulder, head injury and blunt injuries all over the body. According to him, PW.2 - do