( 1 ) MR. M. A. Jaleel, the petitioner/claimant in O. P. No. 339/97 on the file of Additional Special Judge for S. P. E. and A. C. B. Cases-cum-V Additional Chief judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad-Motor accidents Claims Tribunal had preferred the present civil miscellaneous appeal being aggrieved of granting of only Rs. 3,000/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation though the appellant/ petitioner/claimant claimed compensation of rs. 1,25,000/- under various heads for the injuries sustained by him in the motor accident which had occurred on 22-7-1996. ( 2 ) SRI Shakeel Ahmed Ansari, the counsel representing the appellant/ claimant made the following submissions. The learned Counsel would submit that the evidence of P. W. 3 and Ex. A. 6 medical bills are available which would go to show that the appellant/petitioner had spent rs. 44,360/ -. The learned Counsel also would submit that the evidence of P. W. 2 if taken into consideration along with Ex. A. 5 taxi bill, it would go to show that the appellant/ claimant had spent Rs. 16,250/- towards transport charges. The Counsel also would submit that the Tribunal totally erred in making an award for a paltry sum of rs. 3,000/- viewing the oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant/ claimant with an element of suspicion. The counsel also advanced certain submissions relating to how the investigation would be conducted by police and how the cases would be registered under the relevant provisions of the Indian Penal Code for lesser offences and would contend that the same cannot be made the basis while deciding the quantum of compensation to be awarded in a motor accident claim. ( 3 ) PER contra, Sri Kota Subba Rao, the Counsel representing the 2nd respondent would contend that it is not as though the Tribunal had not considered the oral and documentary evidence. The learned counsel had taken this Court through the findings which had been recorded at paras 7 to 15 and would contend that inasmuch as ex. A. 5 is a consolidated bill relating to transport charges, the same was viewed with suspicion and had been disallowed. The learned Counsel also would submit that even if the evidence of P. W. 2 and Ex. A. 5 is a consolidated bill relating to transport charges, the same was viewed with suspicion and had been disallowed. The learned Counsel also would submit that even if the evidence of P. W. 2 and Ex. A-6 to be taken into consideration the same may have to be taken to have been brought into existence for the purpose of claiming higher compensation inasmuch as the injuries are only simple injuries. While further elaborating his submissions, the Counsel would submit that the averments made in the First Information Report also may have to be taken into consideration while fixing the quantum of compensation. The learned Counsel placed strong reliance on rule 476 (7) of the A. P. Motor Vehicles rules 1989, hereinafter in short referred to as "rules" for the purpose of convenience, and would contend that in the light of the same the contents of the F. I. R. had been taken into consideration and the Tribunal had arrived at the correct conclusion in awarding Rs. 3,000/ -. At any rate, the claim made by the appellant/claimant is exorbitant and excessive. In all fairness, the Counsel would submit that in the event this Court arriving at a conclusion that awarding of Rs. 3,000/- is on the lesser side, just and reasonable compensation may be fixed depending upon the facts and circumstances. ( 4 ) HEARD the Counsel and perused the records. ( 5 ) AS already referred to supra, the claimant aggrieved of the granting of lesser compensation had preferred this civil miscellaneous appeal. The claim made by the appellant/claimant is Rs. 1,25,000/- under various heads in respect of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident which had occurred on 22-7-1996. It is stated that the appellant/claimant along with other persons was travelling in a car bearing no. A. P. 12 876 from Bidar to Hyderabad on 22-7-1996. While so at 9. 30 a. m. , when the car reached Ranjoli Village on N. H. No. 9, a lorry bearing No. A. P. 13 T. 4528 came in opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car in which the appellant/ claimant was travelling and as a result thereof, the appellant/ claimant sustained injuries. 30 a. m. , when the car reached Ranjoli Village on N. H. No. 9, a lorry bearing No. A. P. 13 T. 4528 came in opposite direction at high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the car in which the appellant/ claimant was travelling and as a result thereof, the appellant/ claimant sustained injuries. It is stated that he was taken to community Hospital, Jaheerabad where he was given first aid and subsequently he was shifted to Princes Durru Shehvar Hospital, hyderabad where he was admitted as in-patient from 22-7-1996 to 27-7-1996. Thereafter he was advised rest and physiotherapy and thus he incurred heavy expenditure for treatment and in such circumstances it is stated that the appellant/ claimant had claimed compensation of rs. 1,25,000/ -. ( 6 ) THE 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent filed a counter and resisted the claim on the following grounds. It was specified that the driver of the car A. P. 12 876 in which the appellant/claimant was travelling was alone responsible for the accident and there was neither rashness nor negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry. Further, specific stand was taken that the appellant/claimant had not sustained injuries in the accident and further denied the incurring of the expenditure and the income of the appellant/claimant too. ( 7 ) ON the strength of the pleadings, the following Issues were settled by the tribunal : 1. Whether the accident was due to rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation amount as prayed for ? If so for what amount and from whom ? 3. To what relief ? on behalf of the appellant/claimant, P. W. I to P. W. 3 were examined and Exs. A-1 to a-6 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, none had been examined. ( 8 ) THE Tribunal in fact had discussed the oral and documentary evidence commencing from paras 7 to 15 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the appellant/claimant is entitled for a sum of rs. 3,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The evidence of P. W. 1 is clear and categorical relating to all the factual details. 3,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. The evidence of P. W. 1 is clear and categorical relating to all the factual details. P. W. I deposed that on 22-7-1996, p. W. I along with others had been travelling in a Maruthi Car from Bidar to hyderabad and at Ranjoli Village at about 9. 30 a. m. a lorry bearing No. A. P. 13t 4529 came in the opposite direction to the said Maruthi Car and hit the Maruthi Car as a result of which he had sustained fractures. P. W. I also deposed that he was taken to Community Hospital, Jaheerabad. This witness further deposed about Ex. A. l certified copy of F. I. R. , Ex. A. 2 certified copy of charge-sheet in Cr. No. 193/96 on the file of Jaheerabad Police Station. Specifically this witness deposed that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry in question. ( 9 ) IT is no doubt true that as can be seen from Ex. A. l, certified copy of f. I. R. , Cr. No. 193/96 of Jaheerabad Police station was registered under Section 337 i. P. C. as against the driver of the lorry bearing No. A. P. 13t 4528 for causing the accident. Rule 476 of the Rules deals with application for claim and sub-rule (7) of the said Rule dealing with Basis to award the claim reads as hereunder. "the Claims Tribunal shall proceed to award the claim on the basis of :- (i) Registration Certificate of the Motor vehicle involved in the accident; (ii) Insurance Certificate or Policy relating to the insurance of the Motor Vehicle against the Third party risk; (iii) Copy of First Information Report; (iv) Post-mortem certificate or certificate of inquiry from the Medical Officer; and (v) The nature of the treatment given by the Medical Officer who has examined the victim; It is true that sub-rule (7) (iii) refers to copy of F. I. R. Likewise, sub-rule (7) (iv)refers to Post-mortem certificate or certificate of injury from the Medical officer. It is no doubt true that it is a case of injuries. The Tribunal recorded certain findings in relation to evidence of P. W. 3, the Doctor, and Ex. A. 6 and also the evidence of P. W. 2 and Ex. It is no doubt true that it is a case of injuries. The Tribunal recorded certain findings in relation to evidence of P. W. 3, the Doctor, and Ex. A. 6 and also the evidence of P. W. 2 and Ex. A. 5 taxi bill, viewed the same with an element of suspicion and ultimately awarded only Rs. 3,000/- as compensation with interest at 12% per annum. . P. W. 2 is the Accountant in J. K. Travels, Nampally who no doubt deposed about Ex. A. 5 taxi bill. This witness was examined for the purpose of proving the transport charges. Likewise, P. W. 3, the doctor was examined who deposed about the issuance of medical bills Ex. A-6 and also Ex. A. 3, the Discharge summary issued by Princes Durru Shehvar Children's hospital and on the strength of this evidence, submissions at length were made that on this material available before the Tribunal, the Tribunal ought to have awarded at least rs. 44,360/- and Rs. 16,250/- as well reflected from the oral and documentary evidence further supported by the oral evidence of P. W. 2 and P. W. 3 apart from the evidence of P. W. I. As already referred to supra, the case was registered under section 337 I. P. C. This factor also may have to be taken into consideration while fixing the quantum of compensation. However in the light of the nature of injuries which had been well explained, further supported by P. W. 5 and also Exs. A-5 and a-6, this Court is of the considered opinion that the incurring of expenditure by the appellant/claimant to a tune of Rs. 44,360/-cannot be disbelieved since this expenditure had been incurred by the appellant/ claimant towards his medical treatment. Apart from this aspect of the matter, further evidence was placed in relation to the transport charges, the evidence of P. W. 2 coupled with Ex. A. 5. The Tribunal recorded certain reasons and viewed these with suspicion in view of the fact that it is a consolidated bill. Be that as it may, depending upon the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that taking the evidence available on record, the medical bills Ex. A-6 the discharge summary Ex. A. 5. The Tribunal recorded certain reasons and viewed these with suspicion in view of the fact that it is a consolidated bill. Be that as it may, depending upon the facts and circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that taking the evidence available on record, the medical bills Ex. A-6 the discharge summary Ex. A. 3 and also the evidence of p. W. 3 supported by the evidence of P. W. I and further even if the evidence of P. W. 2 and Ex. A. 5 to be viewed with an element of suspicion, it would be just and reasonable to award compensation at Rs. 50,000/- in lumpsum and this quantum of compensation is being fixed taking into consideration the nature of injuries said to have been suffered by the appellant/claimant. It is needless to say that on the enhanced compensation, the appellant/claimant is entitled to interest at 7. 5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, to the extent referred to supra, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. - .