THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.225 of 2008 ORDER: Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, dated 16.11.2007, in O.P.No.1047 of 2006 on the file of the VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum-XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, the present appeal has been preferred by the petitioner seeking enhancement of compensation. Appellant herein is the petitioner in O.P.No.1047 of 2006. He filed the petition claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road accident. The Court below, while assessing the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, granted an amount of Rs.60,000/- towards compensation fixing the liability against respondent No.1 alone. The counsel appearing for the appellant mainly urged that the Court below though held that respondents 1 and 2 are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, awarded compensation fixing the liability against respondent No.1 alone in the operative portion of the judgment, which is to be modified. He further urged that the amount awarded by the Court below is very meager. Now the point for consideration is whether the judgment of the Court below is sustainable? The petitioner examined himself as PW.1 and examined PW.2- Dr.Ajay Kumar Tiwari and got marked Exs.A1 to A9. None were examined on behalf of the respondents, but a copy the policy is marked as Ex.B1, which reveals that the offending vehicle had valid insurance coverage as on the date of the accident. The factum of accident is not in dispute. However, while taking into consideration the evidence of PW.1 and the documentary evidence Ex.A1-Certified copy of the F.I.R., the Court below found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle, which is validly insured with respondent No.2 as on the date of accident, and fastened the liability against Respondent Nos.1 and 2 jointly and severally. Having held the liability against respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally, the Court below in the operative portion observed that respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay compensation, which is in my view is erroneous, therefore, the same is accordingly set aside ordering respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation jointly and severally. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the Court below granted an amount of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.5,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses and another sum of Rs.30,000/- to meet the ends of justice. As per the evidence of PW.2-Dr.Ajay Kumar Tiwari, the petitioner was admitted in Government Hospital on 27.03.2006 with fracture of shaft with both bones and fracture of left leg. A surgery was conducted on 27.03.2006 with inter locking nailing and the petitioner was discharged on 01.04.2006. The petitioner also filed discharge bill for a sum of Rs.33,410/- besides filing bunch of medical bills totaling Rs.13,151/-. Considering all these aspects, the Court below granted Rs.5,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses, and another sum of Rs.30,000/- to meet the ends of justice, which needs no interference. However, since it is an admitted fact that the injured sustained two fractures and underwent surgery with inter locking nailing, the compensation of Rs.25,000/- awarded by the Court below towards pain and suffering is enhanced to Rs.30,000/-. The other findings of the Court below holds good and stands unaltered. Thus, in all, the petitioner/appellant herein is entitled to an amount of Rs.65,000/- towards compensation payable by respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally with interest as ordered by the Court below. With the above modification, the appeal is allowed in part. No costs. ____________________ JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO 15.04.2011 v v