THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A. No.2473 of 2011 JUDGMENT:- The appeal is filed against the order dated.23-06-2004 in M.V.O.P.No.57 of 2002 on the file of the Court of III Additional District Judge, Kakinada, questioning the quantum of compensation. The petitioner is a minor girl aged about 16 years and said to have been suffered injuries in a motor accident on 03-07-2001 when she was coming from kirana shop to her house at about 8 PM a lorry bearing No.AEK 5675 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against her. The respondents 1 and 2 are driver and owner of the lorry and 3rd respondent is the Insurance Company. The petitioner suffered multiple injuries and disability. The respondents are liable to pay the compensation. The respondent Nos.1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent filed a counter denying the allegations in the petition about the rashness and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the lorry and the nature of the injuries and the accident. The lower Tribunal after considering the material on record found that the incident was due to the fault of the driver of the lorry and granted a compensation of Rs.34,000/-. Being not satisfied with the quantum of compensation, the present appeal is filed. Now the point that arises for consideration is:- Whether the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? POINT:- As can be seen from the material on record, the petitioner is said to have received a fracture to her left leg and crush injury to her right foot. The lower Tribunal has accepted both the injuries and granted a compensation of Rs.25,000/- towards pain and suffering. The opinion of PW.2 goes to show that the petitioner has got 5% partial permanent disability. But, no certificate was issued by him. The lower Tribunal felt that disability may not cause future inconvenience to the petitioner. But, the fact remains that the petitioner was having disability to the leg and also a fracture due to the crush injury always cause inconvenience. So also merely because the petitioner was treated in a Government hospital, the medical expenses and attendant expenses cannot be excluded. Ex.X-1 case sheet reveals that the petitioner was operated on 19- 07-2001. Therefore, taking into consideration the above facts the compensation awarded by lower Tribunal appears to be on a lower side and it requires enhancement with regard to disability and medical expenses and keeping in view the age of the petitioner I feel ends of justice would meet if a sum of Rs.75,000/- is granted towards total compensation. The petitioner will be entitled to the interest @ 6% on the enhanced amount from the date of this order. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed. The appellant/petitioner is entitled for a sum of Rs.75,000/- towards total compensation in stead of Rs.34,000/- as granted by the lower Tribunal. Further, the petitioner will be entitled to the interest on the enhanced compensation @ 6% from the date of this order till realisation. _______________________ N.R.L. NĀGESWARA RĀO,J 28-10-2011 TSNR