THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.177 of 2001 JUDGMENT: This is an appeal filed by the claimant against the Award in O.P.No.139 of 1998, dated 20-04-2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Adilabad. The appellant filed the said O.P. under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 seeking compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- on account of the injuries suffered by him in the accident occurred on 07-05-1997. On 07-05-1997 the appellant was travelling in a Jeep bearing No.AP 1 C 2463 from Nirmal of Khanapur along with others. At that time, the bus bearing registration No.AP 9 Z 7301 belonging to the second respondent herein, driven by the first respondent - driver rashly and negligently dashed the Jeep. The appellant received multiple injuries and underwent surgeries. He, therefore, claimed an amount of Rs.1,25,000/- towards compensation. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.45,000/- with interest at 12% per annum from the date of the petition till the date of payment. Feeling that the amount of compensation is inadequate, the appellant has filed the present appeal. The point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? The appellant examined himself as P.W.1 and filed Exs.A1 to A8. The first respondent, who was the driver of the bus belonging to the second respondent herein, filed counter, but he was not examined. The second respondent – APSRTC adopted the counter of the first respondent wherein it was denied that the bus bearing registration No.AP 9 Z 7301 was not involved in any road accident on 07-05-1997 and that the vehicle was not driven rashly and negligently. It was also stated in the counter that the first respondent - driver stopped the bus at the bus stand and the driver of the Jeep drove the vehicle and dashed the stationed bus. The Tribunal formulated the issues as to whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle of the second respondent and whether the appellant was entitled for any compensation and if so, to what amount? The Tribunal based on the evidence, more particularly based on the fact that the first respondent – driver was not examined, gave a finding that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle of the second respondent herein by the first respondent herein. Since there is no appeal or cross-objection filed by the second respondent herein, the issue relating to rash and negligence need not be gone into in this appeal. Heard Sri V.N.Nagami appearing for Sri A.Ravindra Rao counsel for the appellant and Sri P.Sridhar Reddy, learned counsel for the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the Tribunal did not award just and reasonable compensation for the injuries suffered by the appellant. He contended that the injuries were grievous in nature and he was hospitalised from 07-05-1997 to 26-05-1997 and that he was bedridden for about two months. He had to undergo surgery twice and that steel rods had to be inserted as part of treatment. He further contended that the amounts awarded by the Tribunal in respect of the fractures and injuries, medicines and pain and suffering are not adequate. He further argued that the Tribunal should have awarded compensation for loss of earning, towards extra nourishment and transportation charges. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent contended that the Doctor was not examined and hence the gravity of the injuries cannot be believed. He further contended that there were other passengers also travelling along with the appellant and it is very difficult to believe that only the appellant was injured. However, the learned counsel for the second respondent did not dispute that the appellant is entitled for compensation towards loss of earning, extra nourishment and transportation charges. The appellant as P.W.1 in his evidence clearly deposed that on 07-05-1997 at about 8.30 PM he was driving the Jeep and the Bus belonging to the second respondent came in the opposite direction, dashed against his Jeep as a result of which he sustained fractures to both his legs and to his right hand. He further deposed that he was referred to the headquarters hospital, Nirmal, after first aid and shifted to Nizamabad Headquarters Hospital. He was under treatment for 27 days, steel rods were also inserted to his right hand and the plaster to his right leg. He was under bed rest for two months. As he did not get any relief, he underwent second operation in a private hospital. Ex.A2 is the wound certificate. The respondents did not dispute the genuineness of the same. Further, when the appellant deposed as P.W.1, no suggestion was made with reference to Ex.A2. Hence, the contention of the learned counsel for the second respondent that the wound certificate cannot be taken into consideration in the absence of examining the Doctor is not acceptable. The contention that when there were other passengers in the vehicle it is unbelievable that the appellant alone was injured cannot be countenanced. Based on Ex.A2 the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.38,000/- for the injuries sustained by the appellant. It also awarded Rs.2,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards pain and suffering. Having regard to the nature of injuries, I am of the view that the compensation awarded in respect of the injuries is adequate. However, I am of the opinion that the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded towards pain and suffering is not adequate. The appellant sustained grievous injuries. In the first instance he was referred to the Headquarters Hospital, Nirmal and later shifted to Nizamabad and he had to undergo surgery for insertion of steel rods to his right hand and plaster of paris to his right leg. He also underwent a second operation. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the appellant suffered prolonged pain and suffering. Having regard to the same, I am of the opinion that he is entitled for compensation of Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering. Since the Tribunal has already awarded Rs.5,000/-, the appellant is entitled for a differential amount of Rs.5,000/- on this count. The Tribunal has not awarded compensation towards loss of earning. The appellant was in the Hospital from 07-05-1997 to 26-05-1997 and he was further bedridden for two months. His evidence in this regard was not disputed by the respondents. His evidence that he was earning Rs.70 to 80 per day was also not rebutted. Taking the same into consideration, the appellant is entitled for Rs.6,320/- towards loss of earning for 79 days. The appellant is also entitled for compensation towards extra nourishment. Since the appellant was under treatment and bedridden, I am of the view that he is entitled for Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment. He was shifted from Nirmal Hospital to Nizamabad Hospital and therefore he is entitled for Rs.2,000/- towards transportation charges. Thus, I am of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for an additional sum of Rs.18,320/-, rounded off to Rs.18,500/-. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant is entitled for a total sum of Rs.63,500/- as fair and just compensation. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.45,000/-. Hence, the appellant is entitled for the differential amount of Rs.18,500/-. The appellant is entitled for interest at 6% from the date of filing of the petition till the date of realization. Thus, the Award in O.P.No.139 of 1998, dated 20-04-2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge at Adilabad is modified. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed in part. No costs. _________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 05-02-2010. SKMR THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.177 of 2001 Date : 02-2010 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI C.M.A. No.177 of 2001 Date : 02-2010 Between : Korra Ramesh .. Appellant And D.Sayanna and another .. Respondents