THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3102 OF 2001 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed against the award, dated 15.10.2001, passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, in O.P.No.41/97. The claimant is the appellant herein. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the second respondent-insurance company. 3. The petitioner claimed compensation of Rs.2.00 lakhs for the injuries he received in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 01.05.1996. According to the petitioner, on 01.05.1996 he was a pillion rider on a motorcycle and the offending lorry AP 16 V 7738 came from behind and dashed his motorcycle. He received multiple injuries. He was shifted to Nagarjuna Hospital, Kanuru. On the complaint given to the police, a case in Cr.No.57 of 1996 was registered. Petitioner suffered fractures of both legs. He underwent treatment for substantial period. There were three surgeries performed for his injuries. He spent substantial money for treatment. He became permanently disabled. 4. Counter was filed by the second respondent denying the allegations. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 01.05.1996 due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the lorry bearing No.AP 16 V 7738? 2. What is the quantum of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled and from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined, who including the petitioner, the eyewitness, and the medical officer, and Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On behalf of the second respondent, Ex.B1 the copy of insurance policy was marked. 5. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-, i.e., Rs.25,000/- towards disability, Rs.15,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial Judge overlooked the fact that after filing of the O.P. also, the petitioner underwent treatment, as such, the amount of Rs.15,000/- mentioned in O.P. towards medical expenses was inadequate. The amounts spent subsequently also ought to have been granted. No amount is granted towards extra nourishment and the amount granted towards permanent disability is paltry. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for allowing the appeal? 8. As seen from the impugned petition, the amount claimed under the head ‘medical treatment’ is Rs.15,000/-. As such, the Court below granted the entire amount claimed towards medical treatment. There is no proper explanation from P.W.1 as to whether after filing of O.P. also he took further treatment. However, the evidence of P.W.3, the Medical Officer shows that the petitioner took treatment in two spells. Hence, I am inclined to grant another amount of Rs.7,500/- i.e. 50% of the amount originally spent by him. Thus, in total a sum of Rs.22,500/- is granted towards medical expenses. 9. No compensation was awarded by the Court below towards extra nourishment as against the claim of Rs.10,000/-. Material on record reveals that the petitioner was in hospital for substantial period and underwent three surgeries. As such, there is no justification in granting any amount towards extra nourishment. As the claim under the head ‘extra nourishment’ itself is Rs.10,000/-, an amount of Rs.5,000/- can be awarded to the appellant. The appellant claimed Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering and the same was granted by the Court below, which shall remain undisturbed. 10. The Court below granted Rs.25,000/- towards permanent disability taking into consideration the petitioner suffered two fractures for his both legs and underwent three surgeries including surgery for knee. This Court is of the view that due to such fractures and surgeries, he must have suffered a reasonable permanent disability and the same was also spoken by P.W.3, relevant portion of which is extracted hereunder: “at present he can walk normally, but there may be some difficulty in climbing stairs”. The Court below observed that P.W.3 did not speak of any substantial disability and said that there would be some disability. But, from the above evidence of P.W3, there is possibility of inconvenience for the petitioner while climbing stairs. Thus, the petitioner suffered some disability, which should be through out his life and the efficiency of the petitioner would naturally come down. Considering these circumstances, the amount of Rs.25,000/- granted by the Court below towards permanent disability be enhanced to Rs.50,000/-. 11. Thus, the total compensation would arrive at Rs.87,500/-, which an be rounded off to Rs.90,000/-. 12. Accordingly, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the amount of compensation granted by the Court below is enhanced to Rs.90,000/- from Rs.50,000/-. The enhanced compensation amount shall carry interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 29th June 2010, Rns