##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY

M.A.C.M.A.No.3581 of 2008

DATED: 02.04.2026 Between:

Syed Muqthar …. Appellant

AND

Yousuf Ali and another …. Respondents

::JUDGMENT::

The present appeal calls in question the correctness of the award

dated 03.04.2008 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Nizambad District, in O.P. No.1145 of 2004, whereby the claim petition filed by the claimant came

to be partly allowed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall hereinafter be referred

to as they were arrayed before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the present appeal are that the claim petition was filed by the claimant under Section 166 (1) (a) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 read with Rue 455 of A.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989, seeking compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- from respondent Nos.1 and 2, who are the insured and insurer respectively of the offending vehicle i.e., Auto bearing registration No. AP – 25 – U – 2623, for the injuries

sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 08.03.2003.

2

4. The respondent No.1 remained exparte and whereas respondent No.2, however, filed a counter affidavit denying the claim of the claimant and

prayed to dismiss the same.

5. The learned Tribunal, upon appreciation of the rival contentions, oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle. Consequently, compensation of Rs.30,000/ was awarded with interest at 7.5% per annum. Aggrieved by the quantum of compensation so awarded, the claimant has

preferred the present appeal seeking enhancement.

6. Heard Sri Ullewad Sai Charan, learned counsel representing Sri Lakkadi Dayaker Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant,

and Sri T.Sanjay K.Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2.

7. Having considered the submissions advanced on either side and upon perusal of the material available on record, the following issue arises for

consideration:

“Whether the compensation awarded to the claimant warrants

interference by this Court?”

8. The grievance of the claimant is that the learned Tribunal failed to award the compensation under the heads of “loss of earnings”, “medical treatment”, and “future medical expenses”. It is contended that despite the claimant having sustained grievous injuries and incurred substantial

3

expenditure towards treatment, the compensation awarded by the learned

Tribunal is wholly inadequate and meagre.

9. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 would submit that the learned Tribunal has duly considered the evidence available on record and awarded just and reasonable compensation, and therefore, the award does

not warrant any interference by this Court.

10. As evident from Ex.A3, the wound certificate, the claimant sustained grievous injuries i.e., (i) Swelling and deformity of the right forearm, wrist joint with fracture of radius; (ii) An abrasion over the left elbow 10x7 cm.,; and (iii) Swelling and deformity over the right 4^th, 5^th and 6^th ribs. Injuries (i) and (iii) are grievous and injury (ii) is simple in nature. Ex.A3 is corroborated by the testimony of PW2, who provided treatment to the

claimant/PW1.

11. It is specifically submitted by the claimant that he incurred an expenditure of Rs.1,50,000/- towards medical treatment. Although the claimant sought compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-, no documentary evidence such as medical bills or hospital records has been produced to substantiate

the said expenditure.

12. Admittedly, the learned Tribunal did not award any compensation to the claimant under the heads of ‘loss of earnings’, ‘medical expenses’ and ‘attendant charges’. The learned Tribunal appears to have declined such claims on the ground that the claimant failed to adduce documentary

evidence in support thereof.

4

13. The claimant