( 1 ) THE appellant is the claimant, who filed O. P. No. 1807 of 3999 on the file of Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge, Visakapatnam, claiming compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained by her in the accident occurred on 2-10-1999 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No. AP-5x-5652. The 1st respondent is the owner while the 2nd respondent is the insurer of the said borry. ( 2 ) THE Tribunal, after considering the oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry. ( 3 ) INSOFAR as the quantum of compensation is concerned, as against the claim of Rs. 1,50,000/-, the Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 25,000/- only along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. Aggrieved by the said quantum of compensation, the appellant-claimant filed this appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation. ( 4 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they are arrayed before the Tribunal. ( 5 ) TO prove the claim of the claimant, the claimant herself examined as PW. 1 and the Doctor, who examined her to assess the disability, was examined as PW. 2 and filed Exs. A-1 to A-6. ( 6 ) ON behalf of the respondents, none was examined and no documentary evidence had been adduced. ( 7 ) PW-1 deposed that on 2-10-1999 while she was travelling in the Auto bearing no. AP-31-V-2515 and when the said auto reached near Petrol Bunk at Anakapalli bye-pass road at about 2 p. m. , the lorry bearing No. AP-5x-5652, belonging to the 1st respondent, came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said Auto. As a result of which, she fell down and she received injury of the back of her neck, fracture of 9th rib on the left side, injury to left knee fracture injury to right pelvis and injury to spinal cord. Soon after the accident, she was taken to Anakapalli Government Hospital by an Auto driver in a Rickshaw, as the auto was damaged. She was treated as inpatient in Government Hospital, Anakapalli for twenty days. Thereafter, she continued treatment privately. She spent Rs. 30,000/-towards medical and other expenses. Soon after the accident, she was taken to Anakapalli Government Hospital by an Auto driver in a Rickshaw, as the auto was damaged. She was treated as inpatient in Government Hospital, Anakapalli for twenty days. Thereafter, she continued treatment privately. She spent Rs. 30,000/-towards medical and other expenses. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the said lorry. She used to earn Rs. 60/- to Rs. 70/- per day by selling vegetables. Ex. A-1 is the CC for fir, Ex. A-2 is the CC of Wound Certificate, ex. A-3 is the CC of M. V. I. report, Ex. A-4 is the CC of charge-sheet, Ex. A-5 is the cc of calendar and judgment in C. C. No. 550 of 1999 on the file of Judicial First class Magistrate, Anakapalli and Ex. A-6 is the disability certificate issued by PW. 2, the suggestion in the cross-examination that she was not treated in the Government hospital for twenty days was denied. ( 8 ) ADMITTEDLY, she has not filed any bills in support of her contention that she spent Rs. 30,000/- towards medical expenses. She has also not filed any medical bills with regard to her admission and treatment taken by her except Exs. A-2 and A-6. Further, she examined PW. 2-Doctor who issued Ex. A-2 Wound Certificate. The genuineness or otherwise of Ex. A-2-Wound certificate has not at all been disputed. ( 9 ) IN Ex. A-2 Wound Certificate, the following injuries are mentioned : "1. Contused swelling of neck posteriorly 2" x 2" sizes, with restricted movements, red colour, x-rays advised. 2. Contused swelling of right buttock, red colour, with restricted movements, x-ray pelvis advised. 3. Three lacerations 3/4" sizes, irregular, with ooze blood, left leg anterior, sutures applied, red colour. 4. Contused swelling 2" x 2" size, on right later chest, red colour x-rays advised. " ( 10 ) IN the claim petition also, the following injuries are mentioned : "1. Contused swelling of neck 2" x 2" with restricted movement. 2. Contused swelling of right buttock with restricted movement pelvis fracture. 3. Three lacerated 1/4" size irregular on left leg. 4. 9th rib fracture. 5. Injury on spine. " ( 11 ) PW. 2, who is Orthopedic Surgeon, deposed that he examined PW. 1 on 11-8-2001. He issued Ex. Contused swelling of neck 2" x 2" with restricted movement. 2. Contused swelling of right buttock with restricted movement pelvis fracture. 3. Three lacerated 1/4" size irregular on left leg. 4. 9th rib fracture. 5. Injury on spine. " ( 11 ) PW. 2, who is Orthopedic Surgeon, deposed that he examined PW. 1 on 11-8-2001. He issued Ex. A-6 Disability Certificate without taking any X-ray and the District board is constituted to issue Disability certificate. He is not a member in that panel. Ex. A-6 is not counter signed either by the Panel Doctor or Medical Superintendent ( 12 ) THEREFORE, I am of the opinion that the Tribunal rightly refused to accept ex. A-6 Disability Certificate. But, the tribunal failed to consider oral evidence of pw. 2 and Ex. A-2-Wound Certificate, more so, when there is no dispute with regard to Ex. A-2-Wound Certificate. The oral evidence of PW. 2 coupled with Ex. A-2-Wound Certificate, Ex. A-1-FIR and Ex. A-4-charge-sheet go to show that the claimant sustained the above mentioned injuries in the accident occurred on 2-10-1999. Further, there is no dispute with regard to the daily income of the claimant at Rs. 60/- per day. ( 13 ) IN view of the cumulative effect of the entire material available on record, it cannot be said that there is no mention of partial permanent disability or the loss of earning power or that the claimant has not sustained expenses towards medical and that there was no pain and suffering. Therefore, taking into account over all facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that the claimant is entitled to compensation of Rs. 60,000/- in all respects. ( 14 ) ACCORDINGLY, the CMA is partly allowed enhancing compensation from rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) to Rs. 60,000/- (Rupees sixty thousand only) along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realization. There shall be no order as to costs. .