THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A. No.802 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 04.01.2008, in O.P.No.2487 of 2005 on the file of the learned VII Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge-cum- XXI Additional Chief Judge, Hyderabad, wherein the said claim application filed by the appellant herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( for brevity, ‘the Act’), seeking compensation, was allowed in part awarding compensation of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. None appeared for the respondents. Perused the record. 3. Appellant herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 06.11.2004. According to the claimant, on that day, he was proceeding on a Hero Honda Splendor bearing No.AP-11N-2606 from Pahadi Shariff towards Rajendranagar side along with one Sk.Abdul Raheem and when they reached RCI gate, a bus bearing No.AP-10Z-6264, belonging to the respondent Corporation, came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed the motor cycle as a result of which claimant sustained multiple injuries. A case in Cr.No.247 of 2004 was registered by the police, Pahadi Shariff against the driver of the RTC bus. The claimant was admitted in the hospital on 06.11.2004 and he underwent surgery on 09.11.2004. As a result of the injuries sustained, he incurred permanent disability. Respondent Corporation filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 4. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A18 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondent Corporation. 5. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the RTC bus by its driver. The said finding has become final as no appeal is preferred by the respondent Corporation. The Tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.1,35,000/-. Not satisfied with the award, claimant preferred the present appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 6. The medical evidence on record, particularly, the testimony of P.W.2-Dr.Mazharuddin Ali Khan, coupled with Ex.A3-M.L.C. record of Owaisi hospital, Ex.A4- discharge card issued by the hospital would show that the claimant sustained commuted fracture of left femur, left clavicle and pubic rami and he was admitted in the hospital on 06.11.2004 and was operated on 09.11.2004 for fixation of plates and screws and that he was discharged on 25.11.2004. It is also the evidence of P.W.2 that the claimant was required to undergo another surgery for the removal of implants at the cost of Rs.10,000/-. According to P.W.2, claimant suffered physical disability of 20%. P.W.2 made the said assessment on 24.08.2007, about three years after the accident, but no certificate of any such disability issued by the competent medical Board is filed by the claimant. The Tribunal has therefore rightly rejected the claim for compensation towards permanent disability. 7. The Tribunal awarded Rs.60,000/- for three fracture injuries sustained; Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering; Rs.50,000/- towards medical and other incidental expenses and Rs.15,000/- towards future expenses for the removal of the implants, making up a total of Rs.1,35,000/-. According to the claimant, he incurred a total medical expenditure of Rs.1,32,835/- covered by the bunch of medical bills-Ex.A9 and he paid Rs.40,500/- towards hospital charges covered by the discharge bill- Ex.A5 and that he spent Rs.15,152/- towards cost of implants under the bill-Ex.A6. However, the Tribunal failed to take the same into consideration and awarded a meager sum of Rs.50,000/- towards medical expenses in lumpsum. When the claimant has filed bunch of medical bills-Ex.A9, showing a total expenditure of Rs.1,32,835/-, there is absolutely no reason for the Tribunal to ignore the same, especially when no objection was raised by the other side regarding the genuineness or the authenticity of the bills and the expenditure borne out by them. Claimant is therefore entitled for the amount of Rs.1,32,000/- towards medical expenses. For the same reason the claimant is entitled for Rs.40,500/- paid by him towards hospital charges at the time of discharge, which is covered by Ex.A5. The Tribunal has awarded Rs.15,000/- towards future medical expenses as estimated by P.W.2. The amount of Rs.10,000/- awarded by the Tribunal towards pain and suffering is also justified having regard to the fact that the claimant sustained two fracture injuries. Claimant is also entitled for a sum of Rs.5000/- towards attendant charges; Rs.5000/- towards extra nourishment and Rs.2500/- towards transportation charges, and regarding the nature of the injuries sustained by him; the period of hospitalization and the nature of treatment undergone by him, the amount of Rs.60,000/- awarded by the Tribunal is not sustainable as the impugned order does not indicate for what purpose and on what sub-head the said amount was granted. When compensation was awarded towards pain and suffering in a sum of Rs.10,000/-, awarding another sum of Rs.60,000/- for the injuries is only superfluous. Claimant is therefore entitled for a total compensation of Rs.2,10,000/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of the petition. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 8. In the result, appeal is allowed to the extent stated above. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 26th September, 2011. Tsy