HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2299 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner against the order in O.P.No.1271 of 2001 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Nizamabad, questioning the quantum of compensation. 2. A claim was made for a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident. According to the case of the petitioner, on 17.05.2001 at about 7.45 P.M., when the minor petitioner and another person were going on a cycle, the lorry bearing No.AAA 1360 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the said cycle, as a result of which, the petitioner suffered multiple injuries and was treated as inpatient and also suffered disability. There is said to be a fracture of the nasal bone and a permanent disability is caused. The owner of the vehicle remained ex parte and the insurance Company has filed a counter denying the averments made in the petition and disputed the claim of the petitioner, putting the petitioner to strict proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle, nature of injuries received by the petitioner and also the expenditure incurred by him. After considering the evidence on record, the lower Tribunal has granted a compensation of Rs.22,000/-. Having not satisfied with the same, the appeal is filed. 3. The point for consideration is whether the compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and legal? 4. POINT: Evidently, the petitioner is a minor and there cannot be any attributable negligence to him and the evidence on record clearly shows that due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry the incident has happened. Added to that, the wound certificate Ex.A.3 clearly goes to show that the petitioner has got a fracture of nasal bone, which is a grievous injury and there are five abrasions. The petitioner was evidently treated at Secunderabad and spent money for treatment. Therefore, pain suffered by the petitioner cannot be estimated at a lesser value and the compensation of Rs.20,000/- granted by the lower Tribunal appears to be low. So also only Rs.2,000/- was granted towards medical expenses. When the petitioner was admittedly treated at Secunderabad and there was a fracture on nasal bone, naturally some expenditure might have been incurred and also for travel and attendance. Therefore, taking into consideration the above circumstances, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.40,000/- is granted. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:13.10.2011 INL