HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY M.A.C.M.A. No.820 OF 2005 JUDGMENT: Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded in O.P. No.156 of 1999 vide order dated 25-02-2002 by the learned Chairman, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal – cum – District Judge, Nalgonda, claimant preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 2. The owner of the lorry bearing No.ADM – 7187 that 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 are referred to as arrayed in the O.P. before the Tribunal. 4. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal is that on the intervening night of 29/30-10-1996 at about 1-00 AM, while he was going in his lorry bearing No.AP16 – T – 7344 from Hyderabad to Vijayawada, near Kattangur, the lorry bearing No.ADM – 7187 being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and high speed came in the opposite direction and dashed against the lorry of the claimant, as a result, he sustained fracture of both bones of right leg, grievous injury to right thigh and other injuries all over the body. He was treated at Nalgonda Hospital as inpatient for ten days and due to the injuries, he sustained permanent disability. Hence, he claimed a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. 5. Respondent No.1, owner of the lorry that involved in the accident, remained ex parte. 6. Respondent No.2, insurer of the above lorry, alone filed its counter denying the case of the claimant and 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 rash and negligent driving by the driver of the lorry bearing No.ADM-7187? 2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation, If so to what amount ? 3) To what relief ?” 8. To prove his case, claimant got examined himself as PW.1 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-10. On behalf of the insurance company, no oral evidence was adduced but marked insurance policy of the offending lorry as Ex.B-1. 9. Based on the evidence on record and after an elaborate consideration of the same, Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.30,000/- to the claimant fixing the liability on both the respondents for payment of compensation with interest at 9% per annum. Being dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation, claimant preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of compensation. 10. Since neither of the respondents preferred any appeal or cross-objections, there is no need to go into the question of proving the accident and their liability for payment of compensation to the claimant. 11. Hence, now the only point that arises for consideration is whether the compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant is inadequate ? 12. It is a case where claimant, driver by profession, met with the accident while driving the lorry and sustained five injuries, out of which one is grievous, which is fracture of right tibia and fibula. The discharge summary of the claimant, Ex.A-7 dated 15-02-1997 of M.V.S. Orthopaedic Hospital, Vijayawada, shows that he was admitted in the hospital on 03-02-1997 and discharged on 16-02-1997. He claims that he initially took treatment in Nalgonda Hospital and thereafter at Khammam and Vijayawada and spent nearly Rs.40,000/- for treatment and that because of the injuries he became permanently disabled and he is unable to do any work. A perusal of Ex.A-7 discharge summary dated 15-02-1997 issued by a private hospital Viz., M.V.S. Orthopaedic Hospital, Vijayawada shows that claimant sustained fracture of right tibia and fibula and he took treatment in that hospital from 03-02-1997 to 16-02-1997 for the injuries sustained by him in a lorry accident on 29-10-1996. Thus, holding that claimant got discharged himself from the hospital against the medical advice of the doctors and there is no evidence to show that he took treatement before admission in that hosptial, Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.20,000/- towards pain and suffering and Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses, totalling to Rs.30,000/-. 13. However, Tribunal has not awarded any amount towards fracture of right leg and consequent temporary and permanent disability sustained by the claimant. In the circumstances and since the claim of the claimant was that he was a driver by profession, I am of the view that another Rs.20,000/- can be awarded to him as he sustained fracture of right leg tibia and fibula, which would cause inconvenience to him while driving, which is his livelihood, and the same is accordingly awarded. 14. Thus, the compensation of Rs.30,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is enhanced to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). Claimant is entitled to interest on the enhanced compensation at 6% per annum from the date of O.P. till realization. He is permitted to withdraw the entire compensation soon after its deposit. 15. With the above enhancement in quantum of compensation and directions, the appeal is allowed in part. No order as to costs. ____________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J December 3, 2010. PV