JUDGMENT : A.V. RAVINDRA BABU, J. 1. Challenge in this M.A.C.M.A. is to the award, dated 06.10.2006 in M.V.O.P. No. 140 of 2004, on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District (“Tribunal” for short). 2. The appellant is the claimant in the M.V.O.P. No. 140 of 2004 before the Tribunal and he urged to pay compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- towards injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident and the learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.53,000/- as against Rs.1,50,000/-. Felt aggrieved that the compensation so awarded by the Tribunal as inadequate, the claimant filed this M.A.C.M.A. 3. The parties to this M.A.C.M.A. will hereinafter be referred to as described before the learned Tribunal for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the petitioner, in brief, according to the averments in the Motor Vehicle accident claim, is that: (i) On 07.09.2003, the petitioner was waiting for a bus in order to come to Madanapalle. At about 04.30 p.m., near Sarkar thopu on Madanapalle-Kadiri road, the driver of offending jeep bearing No. AP 04 U 5582 (“offending vehicle” for short), drove the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, who was standing nearby the bus stop. The petitioner sustained injuries to his head and other vital parts of the body. Immediately after the accident, he was admitted into Government Hospital, Madanapalle. As his condition was serious, he was referred to a well equipped Hospital i.e., Saint John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. (ii) At Banglore, the petitioner was inpatient nearly for one month and odd and took treatment for the injuries. He was operated thrice and in-spite of injury to the spinal cord, he is unable to sit properly. He sustained disability permanently. He spent Rs.60,000/- towards medicines and Rs.5,000/- towards extra-nourishment, Rs.15,000/- for transport and attendant. The petitioner has been taking treatment from one Dr.Viswakiran Reddy at Madanapalle. He felt much mental agony. Prior to the accident, he was doing cultivation and milk vending and he was getting income of Rs.200/- per day and on account of the disability, he lost income. The driver of the offending vehicle was discharging his duty in the course of employment under the respondent No. 1. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2. 5. The driver of the offending vehicle was discharging his duty in the course of employment under the respondent No. 1. Hence, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. The vehicle was insured with the respondent No. 2. 5. The respondent No. 1 remained exparte before the Tribunal. The Respondent No. 2 filed counter denying the allegations and putting the petitioner to strict proof of the allegations that the petitioner was inpatient in Saint John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore, for nearly one month and that he is taking treatment under Dr.Viswakiran Reddy, Madanapalle. The petitioner is attending his work properly. The jeep of respondent No. 1 was insured with respondent No. 2, but the driver of the jeep did not have valid driving licence, as such O.P. is liable to be dismissed. 6. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned Tribunal settled the following issues for trial: (1) Whether the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the offending jeep bearing No. AP 04 U 5582 which resulted injuries to the petitioner? (2) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation if so, by whom? (3) To what relief? 7. During the course of enquiry before the Tribunal, PWs.1 and 2 were examined and Ex.A1 to A.10 were marked. On behalf of the respondent No. 2, RW.1 was examined and Ex.B1 was marked. 8. The learned Tribunal on hearing both sides and on considering the oral and documentary evidence, awarded a sum of Rs.53,000/- as against the original claim of Rs.1,50,000/-. Felt aggrieved of the same, the petitioner in the M.V.O.P. filed the present M.A.C.M.A. 9. The petitioner allowed the M.A.C.M.A. dismiss for default against the respondent No. 1 though a joint and several liability is fixed against the respondent No. 1 along with respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 made appearance through counsel, but did not advance any arguments. 10. Now in deciding the M.A.C.M.A., the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner in M.V.O.P.No. 140 of 2004 is just and reasonable and if not so, to what amount the petitioner/appellant is entitled to? (2) To what relief? Point Nos. 1 and 2: 11. 10. Now in deciding the M.A.C.M.A., the points that arise for consideration are as follows: (1) Whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the petitioner in M.V.O.P.No. 140 of 2004 is just and reasonable and if not so, to what amount the petitioner/appellant is entitled to? (2) To what relief? Point Nos. 1 and 2: 11. Sri D.Kodandarami Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would contend that in spite of evidence adduced by the petitioner with regard to surgical procedure that was done on him in the Hospital of PW.2, the Tribunal declined to award the expenditure incurred under Ex.A6-medical bills to a tune of Rs.28,000/- and further in spite of the fact that PW.2 assessed disability as that of 20% the Tribunal did not look the same, as such, compensation is liable to be enhanced. 12. As seen from the evidence of PW.1 who is no other than the petitioner, he explained the manner of accident. Insofar as the findings of the Tribunal that the accident was occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and that the offending vehicle was validly insured with the respondent No. 2 is concerned, those are not at all in dispute, because the respondent No. 2 did not file any cross-objections. So, only thing that is to be considered in this M.A.C.M.A. is about the quantum of compensation. It is to be noted that a disability is to be proved by producing a disability certificate issued by the competent Medical Board. PW.2 is a private medical practitioner who has no power to assess the disability whatsoever. So, his evidence that the disability is 20% and he issued Ex.P9 deserves no merits. The petitioner did not prove disability by submitting himself to the Medical Board and by getting any certificate from Medical Board and by further examining any competent persons from the Medical Board. In my considered view, the Tribunal did not rightly consider disability. 13. Regarding the medical expenditure claimed, it appears that the Tribunal took into consideration what all the medical expenditure claimed by the petitioner at Banglore in Saint John’s Medical College Hospital. It is to be noted that the pleadings of the petitioner are specific. In my considered view, the Tribunal did not rightly consider disability. 13. Regarding the medical expenditure claimed, it appears that the Tribunal took into consideration what all the medical expenditure claimed by the petitioner at Banglore in Saint John’s Medical College Hospital. It is to be noted that the pleadings of the petitioner are specific. His claim is that he was admitted as inpatient in Saint John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore and he was there for nearly one month and odd and he underwent three (3) surgeries there. It is fact that he did not produce discharge summery issued by Saint John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. His contention that he was treated as inpatient by undergoing three (3) surgeries at Saint John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore if considered, it means that he must have been there up to 07.10.2003. But curiously, contrary to the pleadings, he deposed as if he took treatment in the aforesaid only for nine (9) days and later came down to Madanapalle and undergone treatment in the Hospital of PW.2. As seen from the evidence of PW.2, in cross-examination, he deposed that he is not maintaining accounts and he is not maintaining any ledgers, but he is an income tax assessee. He did not bring any record concerning Ex.A6. He admitted that the petitioner underwent operation at Banglore to injured nerves around the neck. According to PW.2, to set right the clavicle fracture, a surgery was necessitated in his Hospital. He denied that he issued Ex.A6 to A9 to oblige the petitioner. It is to be noted that it is the bounden duty of the petitioner to explain how he could go for the surgery in the Hospital of PW.2 when he was in Banglore by then, undergoing treatment in Saint John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. So, the petitioner confused his case to any extent by deposing certain facts which are contra to the record. He did not take any steps to get the discharge summary from Saint John’s Medical College Hospital, Bangalore. He did not disclose the date of discharge. Even the evidence of PW.2 is also vague. He did not explain as to the date of surgery done by him. So, the medical expenses claimed by the petitioner under Ex.A6 was totally contrary to the pleadings. The learned Tribunal rightly looked into all these discrepancies between the pleadings and evidence. 14. He did not disclose the date of discharge. Even the evidence of PW.2 is also vague. He did not explain as to the date of surgery done by him. So, the medical expenses claimed by the petitioner under Ex.A6 was totally contrary to the pleadings. The learned Tribunal rightly looked into all these discrepancies between the pleadings and evidence. 14. Having regard to the above, this Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal rightly looked into the inconsistencies and pleading and the evidence adduced and did not consider the medical expenses claimed under Ex.A6. Therefore, this Court does not find any reasons whatsoever to say that the compensation that was awarded in favour of the petitioner is inadequate. 15. In the light of the above, this Court does not see any grounds to interfere with the award, dated 06.10.2006, in M.V.O.P. No. 140 of 2004 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-VII Additional District Judge, Madanapalle, Chittoor District. The compensation that was awarded in favour of the claimant by the Tribunal is just and reasonable which is not liable to be interfered with. 16. In the result, the M.A.C.M.A. is dismissed, but under the circumstances without costs. 17. Consequently, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.