THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.1688 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the petitioner- claimant, against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vizianagaram, in O.P.No.101 of 2000, dated 30.07.2002. 2. Heard. 3. The brief facts are as follows: On 15.12.1999 at about 10.30 p.m. the petitioner was returning home after completion of his work on a cycle, and when he reached near Anjaneyaswamy Temple, Korukonda junction, a car bearing No.AP 30 T 2795 driven by first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed the petitioner. The petitioner fell down and shifted to Government Hospital, Vizianagaram. He claimed compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-. 4. Respondents filed their counters denying the petition allegations. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident and the injuries to the petitioner are due to rash and negligent driving of the accident vehicle i.e., car bearing No.AP 30 T 2795 by R.1 driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation, if so, from which of the respondents? 3. To what relief? 6. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 the petitioner himself, and P.W.2 the doctor, who treated the petitioner in Government hospital, Vizianagaram, were examined and Exs.A1 to A.8 and Exs.X1 and X2 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On the basis of the material on record, the court below granted compensation of Rs.60,000/-. Aggrieved by the above quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed. 7. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner- appellant is that on account of the accident, the petitioner suffered serious injury, i.e., fracture of right leg and he was hospitalised for five months at Government hospital, Vizianagaram. He lost his earnings for five months and also subsequently also, as he was unable to attend to work as Kalasi for substantial period. His hospitalisation for five months would show the gravity of the injury he suffered. As such, the compensation awarded by the court below is inadequate. 8. Now, the point for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled for higher compensation? 9. The evidence of P.W.1 the petitioner is that in the accident, he suffered fracture of right leg and his leg was operated, he was inpatient for seven months. He spent Rs.30,000/- for medicines. After the accident, he was not able to work as Kalasi. The evidence of P.W.2 the medical officer, is that he worked as Civil Surgeon at Government Hospital, Vizianagaram, that on 15.12.1999 he admitted P.W.1 with a compound fracture of right leg, he operated the leg of the petitioner and the petitioner was discharged from the hospital on 27.05.2000. Ex.X1 is the case sheet and Ex.X2 is the X-ray. Thus, according to him, P.W.1 was in the hospital for more than five months. Ex.X2 X.ray shows that there was total breakage of the bone. The fact that the petitioner was hospitalised for more than five months would show that the nature of the injury was somewhat serious. He lost income for five months towards which he can be granted at least Rs.10,000/- even putting his income at Rs.2,000/- a month. Towards hospitalisation charges including attendant charges and minor amounts spent towards treatment etc., he can be granted Rs.30,000/-. He can be granted another amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. He has to be compensated reasonably for the disability permanently he suffered and on account of which he is unable to work for some time after he discharged from the hospital. Thus, the petitioner can be granted a minimum compensation of Rs.1.00 lakh. 10. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed enhancing the compensation from Rs.60,000/- to Rs.1.00 lakh. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation shall be at 6% per annum. No order as to costs. ___________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. Date: 24.11.2010 Rns