HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2407 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed against the judgment in O.P.No.311 of 1999 on the file of the IV Additional District and Sessions Judge – cum – Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Nizamabad, for the injuries received in a motor accident. According to the case of the appellant, on 28.05.1998 at about 10.30 a.m. when the petitioner was going in an auto to go to her village, due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver, it turned turtle and she received injuries. The first respondent is the owner and the second respondent is the insurance company and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation of Rs.50,000/-. First respondent remained ex parte. Second respondent filed a counter putting strict proof of the nature of the incident and the nature of injuries received by the petitioner. On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no evidence was adduced. After considering the evidence on record, the lower tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.8,000/-. Aggrieved by the said order, the present appeal is filed. Now the point for consideration is whether the compensation granted by the lower tribunal is just and reasonable? The evidence of P.W.1 goes to show as to how the incident has happened and, in fact, challenging the award, the insurance company has not filed the appeal. Therefore, the nature of the incident and the claim of the appellant that she received injuries in the motor accident, cannot be doubted or disputed. As can be seen from the order of the lower tribunal, as per the evidence of P.W.1, the petitioner has sustained fracture of right shoulder, fracture of left leg and also injury to the chest. She is said to have been treated as inpatient for 15 days. Except Ex.A3 wound certificate, no document is filed to prove the nature of the grievous injuries. The petitioner has received five simple injnuries as per Ex.A3. The lower tribunal has granted a sum of Rs.5000/- for the injuries and Rs.3,000/- for the pain and suffering. Evidently, the composition of the compensation granted by the lower court is not proper. Learned counsel for the respondent contends that the certificate Ex.A3 is not proved and there is no evidence of the doctor and consequently, the enhancement of the claim cannot be accepted. It cannot be forgotten that the respondent has not challenged the award of the Tribunal, which held that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the auto and the petitioner has received five simple injuries. That being so, the contention of the counsel for the respondent that the document was not proved cannot be accepted. Evidently, the petitioner is a labourer belonging to a village and due to the injuries received by her she is said to have gone to Kamareddy and got treated there and she must have spent some medical expenses and also some other incidental expenses. Therefore, taking into consideration all the above aspects, I feel the ends of justice would meet if the compensation of Rs.15,000/- is granted. The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at 6% per annum. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part. ______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO, J 27th October, 2011 Rns