HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.407 OF 2003 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.728 of 1996 vide judgment dated 13-10-1999 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Nizamabad, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The owner of the jeep bearing No.API – 411 involved in the accident and its insurer are respondent Nos.1 and 2 respectively in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on 28-03-1995 at about 9-45 AM while he was proceeding as pillion rider on the scooter bearing No.AP25 – A – 7238, near Kalpana Mess at APSRTC Bus stand, Bhainsa, jeep bearing No.API – 411, coming in the opposite way, being driven by its driver in the wrong direction and in a rash and negligent manner and high speed, dashed against the scooter, as a result, he sustained fracture of his right leg and injuries to chest, back, waist and both hands. Immediately, he was shifted to Government Hospital, Bhainsa, where he was treated as inpatient. He took treatement from the private doctors also and spent Rs.75,000/- for treatment. In spite of the treatment, still he is suffering pain in his leg. Due to the injuries and fracture, he became permanently disabled and unable to do any work and his earning capacity is affected. He was aged 38 years and was working as electrician and earning a sum of Rs.5,000/- per month. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1, the owner of the jeep involved in the accident, remained ex parte. 6. Respondent No.2, insurer of the above jeep, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant and also its liability for payment of compensation. 7. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed for trial by the Tribunal: “1. Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of Jeep API – 411 ? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compensation. If so to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief?” 8. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and the doctor, who treated him, as PW.2 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-8. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. 9. Based on the evidence available on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the claimant against both the respondents for payment of compensation jointly and severally with interest at 12% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal. 10. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to decide the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation. 11. Now the point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is inadequate ? 12. According to the claimant as PW.1, after the accident he underwent surgery at Sathyasri Orthopaedic Nursing Home, Nizamabad as an inpatient and there he spent Rs.6,500/- for the surgery and he spent Rs.45,000/- towards medicines. He filed 18 medical bills marked as Ex.A-2 for Rs.9,000/-. Exs.A-4 X-ray film shows fracture of both bones of his right leg. Ex.A-1 medical certificate shows that he suffered three simple injuries apart from a grievous injury. 13. The evidence of PW.2, the medical practitioner who treated the claimant, shows that claimant sustained 35% disability and movements of his right ankle and right knee are partially restricted. Now he cannot stand for long time on the right leg. 14. In the circumstances, the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.75,000/- to the claimant and the same cannot be said to be inadequate. However, as the evidence of the medical officer, PW.2, is that there was restriction of movements of right ankle and right knee of the claimant and that the Tribunal has not taken the same into consideration while computing and awarding compensation, a little more compensation can be awarded to the claimant. Hence, I am of the view that awarding another Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) to the claimant would meet the ends of justice and the same is accordingly awarded. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced by Rs.10,000/-. Thus, the compensation of Rs.75,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.85,000/-. The rate of interest on the enhanced compensation shall be at 6% per annum from the date of O.P. till realization. The claimant is permitted to withdraw the enhanced compensation soon after its deposit along with the accrued interest. 15. With the above enhancement in quantum of compensation and the directions, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 30, 2010. PV