1. The present Appeal is filed along with an application to condone the delay vide M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.5835 of 2014 (I.A.No.1 of 2014) seeking condonation of delay of 1201 days in filing the Appeal.

2. The Respondent Nos.1, 2 & 4 have remained ex parte in terms of the Order dated 23.01.2026. Notice has served on Respondent No.5, but none appeared on his behalf.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that due to ill-health of the Claimant, he was unable to contact the counsel, hence the delay in filing the appeal.

4. On perusal of the contents of the Affidavit filed in support of the application and also considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the Appellant, the delay of 1201 days is condoned. Accordingly, M.A.C.M.A.M.P.No.5835 of 2013 (I.A.No.1 of 2014) is allowed. The Appeal is admitted.

M.A.C.M.A. (SR) No. 37385/2014

5. The Appeal is filed by the Claimant against the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Family Court, West Godavari, Eluru, dated 28.03.2011 in M.V.O.P.No.768 of 2007, assailing the quantum of compensation.

I. CONTENTIONS:

6. The learned counsel for the appellant fairly submits that no surgical intervention took place for the accident. It is only two grievous injuries and one simple injury but the Claimant suffered disability of 30% and also filed Ex.A.6/Notarized copy of Disability Certificate, and prays to enhance the compensation.

II. BRIEF FACTS:

7. The case of the Claimant is that on 03.04.2006, the Claimant was proceeding from Pothunuru to Eluru in an auto/AP-37-W-2823, near the outskirts of Pothunuru Village, another auto/AP-37-W-6935, coming from Eluru towards Pothunuru, driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the auto, in which the Claimant was travelling, he sustained multiple grievous injuries all over his body, he was immediately given first aid treatment at the Government Hospital, Eluru. Thereafter, he was shifted to the University Hospital, Vijayawada, for further treatment. In this regard, the Denduluru Police registered Cr.No. 53 of 2006 under Sections 337 and 338 of the IPC. That he incurred Rs.89,000/- and filed the claim for Rs.2,50,000/-.

III. ANLAYSIS

8. The material on record reveals that the Claimant was examined as PW.1 and the Medical Officer/PW.2, who was examined PW.2 and found the following injuries:

                  i. Swelling of right shoulder with tenderness with a lacerated injury 1 x

                  ¼ x 2 cm red in colour.

                  ii. Laceration of 2 x ¼ x ¼ cm in right forearm. Red in colour, and,

                  iii. Swelling of right and with tenderness and abrasion of 1 x ½ cm.

9. The Tribunal relied on the Wound Certificate/Ex.A2 and X-Ray/Ex.A8. The Tribunal held that the Claimant did not examine any witness to prove Ex.A5, and also held that the Claimant did not examine the Author of Ex.A6/Notarized copy of Disability Certificate. The Tribunal finally awarded Rs.26,000/- under different heads, which are extracted hereunder;

                  i. Two grievous injuries : Rs.20,000.00

                  ii. One simple injury : 2,000.00

                  iii. Medical expenses : 2,000.00

                  iv. Transport and extra nourishment : 2,000.00

10. The main contention of the appellant is with regard to disability. The claimant relied on Ex.A.6/Notarized copy of Disability Certificate. It is well settled in law that a Disability Certificate, by itself, is not sufficient to award compensation under the head of disability. The Claimant not only failed to examine the Doctor to establish the disability but also failed to file the original disability certificate. Generally, the Doctor who issued the certificate must be examined to prove its contents and to depose specifically as to the nature injured, the extent of disability, whether it is temporary or permanent, and more importantly, to which part of the body the disability relates and how it has affected the earning capacity of the Claimant. There is also no material on record to show as to which part the alleged disability has affected and to what extent it has impaired the earning capacity of the Claimant.

IV. CONCLUSION:

11. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds that the appellant has failed to file the original disability certificate and also failed to prove the disability by examining the Doctor who issued Ex.A.6. The Claimant could not demonstrate any infirmity in the Award warranting interference by this Court. Hence, the Appeal is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed.

12. In the result, the Appeal is dismissed without costs in the circumstances of the case.

Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending shall stand closed.