JUDGMENT Ram Mohan Reddy, J. 1. The Managing Director of the North-West Karnataka Road Transport Corporation, Hubli, for short NWKSRTC aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 18-06-2005 in M.V.C. No. 955/2002 of the Addl. MACT, Saundatti (for short ‘MACT’), has preferred this appeal. 2. In the accident that occurred on 8-12-2001 involving a bus belonging to the appellant, the respondent claiming to be a passenger in the said bus and sustained injury over the left forearm, tenderness in the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs in the right side of the chest with difficulty in respiration was treated at the General Hospital, Saundatti while as an in-patient from 8-12-2001 to 20-12-2001. Alleging that the appellant was under treatment in the Hospital belonging to Dr. Hooli, of Saundatti, for the fractures of the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs on the right side of the chest, the appellant claimed compensation by filing a petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘Act) arraigning the appellant and its General Manager as party-respondents. 3. The claim was resisted by filing Statement of objections of the NWKSRTC. In the premise of the pleadings of the parties, the MACT framed issues, recorded the evidence of the claimant as PW-1 and Dr. S.R. Angadi as PW-2, marked 10 documents as Exhibits P-1 to P-10 while for the respondents, neither oral nor documentary evidence was tendered. The MACT, having considered the material on record, the evidence both oral and documentary, attributed actionable negligence to the driver of the vehicle belonging to the appellant and awarded compensation of Rs. 1,49,000/- with interest at 8% per annum by the impugned judgment and award. 4. Although a ground is urged in the appeal memorandum that the finding of actionable negligence is incorrect, nevertheless the ground is not pressed when the appeal was argued. The main thrust of the case of the appellant is that the MACT was not justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,49,000/- which is said to be on the higher side. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant seeks to sustain the impugned judgment and award as being well-merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. 6. The main thrust of the case of the appellant is that the MACT was not justified in awarding compensation of Rs. 1,49,000/- which is said to be on the higher side. 5. Per contra, learned Counsel for the respondent-claimant seeks to sustain the impugned judgment and award as being well-merited, fully justified and not calling for interference. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, examined the impugned judgment and award, perused the material on record, the evidence both oral and documentary, there is no more doubt in my mind that the MACT was fully justified in attributing actionable negligence to the driver of the bus. The police records such as F.I.R., complaint, the spot panchanama, the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector Exhibits P-1, P-2 and P-4 respectively disclose that the driver of the bus was rash and negligent as a result of which the accident occurred and the claimant amongst other passengers in the vehicle, suffered injuries. 7. It is no doubt true that in Exhibit P-3 the Wound Certificate issued by the General Hospital discloses that the appellant suffered from abrasion over the left forearm measuring 1" x ½”. However, Exhibit P-10 the certified copy of the entries in the Medico Legal case issued by the General Hospital, Saundatti discloses that the appellant, sustained abrasions over the left forearm, and tenderness on the left side of the sternum leading to difficulty in respiration and was discharged on 20-12-2001. It is recorded in Exhibit P-10 that a chest X-Ray bearing No. 480/11-12-2001 was taken and the report was NRA. The expansion of this abbreviation is not known as the Doctor who treated the appellant in the General Hospital at Saundatti is not examined. In addition, Exhibit P-10 records the issue of a certificate dated 24-12-2001 which is none other than Exhibit P-3, the Wound Certificate. 8. The claimant-injured examined as PW-1 states that he suffered from fracture of the 6th 7th and 8th ribs in addition to fracture of the right side of the hip in the accident that occurred on 8-12-2001 as disclosed in the X-Ray taken while as an in-patient in the General Hospital at Saundatti. In his deposition he states that he was admitted to Dr. In his deposition he states that he was admitted to Dr. M.M. Hooli’s Hospital at Saundatti and was an inpatient for two days where the fractured ribs were bandaged in addition to bandage to the fractured hip portion, and that he spent Rs. 40,000/- towards medicine and treatment in addition, the claimant states that he was aged 30 years on the date of accident and injury and was working as a daily wage worker in the Forest Department earning Rs. 100/- per day and due to the injuries, is permanently disabled from doing any work. The cross-examination of this witness discloses that he had no documents to support the claim of Rs. 40.000/- towards medical expenses or that he was working as a watchman on daily wages, but has denied the suggestion that he did not suffer any grievous injury in the accident. 9. The other testimony is that of PW-2 Dr. S.R. Angadi who states that it was on 18-01-2005 for the first time the claimant-injured approached him for issue of a Disability Certificate. It is PW-2 who says that the appellant was admitted in Hooli Surgical and Fracture Clinic, Saundatti for a period of two days where he was diagnosed as having sustained fractures of the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs on the right side and strapping was done with cuff and collar slings. It is stated that the X-Ray of the chest taken on 19.1.2001 at the instance of PW2 at Hooli Surgical and Fracture Clinic, Saundatti showed fracture of the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs on the right side. PW-2 further states that on clinical examination of the claimant-injured, he opined that the claimant suffered permanent physical disability of 25% to the right shoulder joint due to the fractures which were also known as frozen shoulder as per ALMICO. The other documentary evidence is a medical certificate dated 25-12-2001 said to be issued by Dr. Mahantesh M. Hooli Exhibit P-5 recording the fracture of the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs of the right side of the chest and about the strapping done and advise of rest for a period of one month. 10. The wound certificate Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-10. the case-sheet contains entries made by the Doctor at General Hospital, Saundatti where X-Ray of the chest was taken, the report disclosed “NRA”. 10. The wound certificate Exhibit P-3 and Exhibit P-10. the case-sheet contains entries made by the Doctor at General Hospital, Saundatti where X-Ray of the chest was taken, the report disclosed “NRA”. If there were fractures to the ribs, as alleged, that report could have been made available along with the X-Ray. The ‘X’ Ray and the radiological report secured at the General Hospital, Saundatti, if produced would have clinched the issue as regards the alleged fratures of the 6th, 7th & 8th ribs. In fact the appellant was an inpatient in the Hospital from 8-12-2001 to 20-12-2001 and Wound Certificate Ex. P3 was issued on 24-12-2001. No explanation is forthcoming over the non-examination of the doctor who treated the claimant at the General Hospital. 11. As against this evidence we have the uncorroborated medical certificate dated 25-12-2001 of Dr. Mahantesh M. Hooli, which certifies that the appellant sustained fractures of the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs. This Doctor too is not examined. Had this Doctor been examined, perhaps the truth would have come out in the circumstances, it is difficult to accept Exhibit P-5 certifying fractures of the 6. 7 & 8th ribs. In the undisputed met that the appellant took treatment at the General Hospital in Saundatti, Exhibit P-3 - Wound Certificate and Exhibit P-10, the record of the General Hospital must necessarily be believed. Accepting that evidence would as a consequence lead to rejection of the medical certificate Exhibit P-5 of Dr. Hooli. In my opinion, the MACT fell in serious error and occasioned grave injustice to the appellant in not properly appreciating the evidence both oral and documentary before concluding that the claimant suffered from fractures of the 6th, 7th and 8th ribs in the accident that occurred on 8-12-2001. 12. Thus it goes without saying that the evidence of PW-2 regarding disability cannot be believed and is unacceptable. In the light of Exhibit P-3 and P-10, the appellant suffered only a simple injury for which the MACT ought to have awarded just compensation. In my opinion, the fallacy in the reasoning of the MACT lies in the superficial and cursory nature of consideration undertaken thereon without reference to relevant material by which the MACT exercising jurisdiction vested in it, awarded excessive compensation to the claimant-injured. In my opinion, the fallacy in the reasoning of the MACT lies in the superficial and cursory nature of consideration undertaken thereon without reference to relevant material by which the MACT exercising jurisdiction vested in it, awarded excessive compensation to the claimant-injured. The judgment and award impugned is shown to suffer from legal infirmities occasioning grave injustice to the appellant calling for interference. 13. Keeping in mind the nature of injuries suffered, the period of hospitalisation, I think it appropriate that the claimant - injured is entitled to award of Rs. 20,000/- with interest at 8% per annum as compensation. In the result, this appeal is allowed in part The impugned judgment and award is modified reducing the compensation from Rs. 1,49,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- with interest at 8% per annum and in all other respects, the impugned judgment and award remains unaltered.