HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.2367 of 2011 JUDGMENT: The appeal is filed by the appellant/petitioner against the order in O.P.No.853 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- VI Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court) at Nizamabad, questioning the quantum of compensation. A claim was made for a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- for the injuries received by the petitioner in a motor accident. 2. According to the case of the petitioner, on 27.06.1999 while he was going on a scooter bearing No.APJ 9677, the lorry tipper bearing No.AP 25 T 4422 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. He claims to have suffered multiple injuries and spent money for treatment and suffered disability. The 1st respondent is owner. The 2nd respondent is Insurance Company. The 1st respondent remained ex parte. The Insurance Company has filed a counter denying the averments made in the petition, putting the petitioner to strict proof of rashness and negligence on the part of the driving 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.21,000/-. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed. 3. The point for consideration is whether the quantum of compensation granted by the lower Tribunal is just and reasonable? 4. POINT: The nature of the incident and the cause of the incident are not in dispute. The evidence of the doctor, who examined the petitioner, has relied upon the certificates Ex.A.4 and Ex.A.5, which are the records of the Government Hospital, Nizamabad. Ex.A.3 is wound certificate, which itself shows that the petitioner has got two abrasions and there was a difficulty in moving the right arm from shoulder and as per the X-ray, there is a crack fracture of great tuborocity of right humerous. The petitioner was said to be in hospital from 27.06.1999 till 05.07.1999. He claims to have taken private treatment. Though the record with regard to private treatment is doubted, the treatment of the Government hospital need not be doubted. Therefore, taking into consideration the above fact, an amount of Rs.7,000/- granted by the lower Tribunal towards pain and suffering of the petitioner for the injuries is very low specially that that there is a grievous injury to the right humerous. The fact that the petitioner was in hospital for sufficient time and also has got some disability cannot be ignored. Therefore, taking into consideration of all the above circumstances, I feel the ends of justice would meet if a compensation of Rs.50,000/- is granted. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________________ JUSTICE N.R.L. NAGESWARA RAO Date:14.10.2011 INL