HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 574 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the petitioner against the order and decree dated 09.08.2007 passed in O.P.No.388 of 2005 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Mahabubnagar. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 25.01.2005 at about 11.00 P.M., the petitioner was the pillion rider on Yamaha motor cycle bearing No.AP-02/F-4991, being driven by its driver Mohammed Abdul Kaleem, and when the motor cycle reached near Myakala banda, the rider of motor cycle was taking a turn to right side, all of a sudden a scooterist appeared, and to save him, the driver of said motor cycle lost control over his motor cycle due to rash and negligent driving, as a result of which he dashed to a wall and the petitioner received fracture to his left femur and tibia. A case in Crime No.53 of 2005 was registered by the Police for the said accident. The petitioner filed the O.P. claiming compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Respondent No.1 remained ex parte and 2nd respondent filed counter denying the petition allegations. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of Yamaha Motor cycle bearing No.AP-02/F-4991? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to claim compensation from the respondents and if so, to what amount and against whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.4 were got marked. On behalf of the respondents, R.W.1 was examined and Ex.B.1 was got marked. The counsel appearing for the appellant mainly urged that the Tribunal granted very meagre compensation of Rs.31,000/- against the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- which is erroneous and urged for enhancement of compensation. Now, the point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? As seen from the impugned order, the trial Court fastened the liability on the owner of the offending vehicle on the violation of policy terms as no premium was paid covering the risk of the pillion rider. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant did not dispute the same and fairly conceded the fastened liability against the owner of the offending vehicle. Admittedly Ex.A.2 is the wound certificate issued by Civil Assistant Surgeon, Government Headquarters Hospital, Mahabubnagar. However, in proof of Ex.A.2, none were examined. According to PW.1, he sustained fracture of left femur, fracture of left tibia and abrasion on left fore arm. PW.1 states that on account of above injuries, he suffered mental pain and agony apart from loss of income. It is also his evidence that he has spent Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses. Ex.A.2 shows that the injuries 1) Healed abrasion on left fore arm near elbow 1” X ½ “, 2) deformity of left knee, and 3) deformity of left leg middle 1/3rd are grievous in nature. It further shows that patient was examined on 17.02.2005 and discharged on 18.02.2005. The X-ray of left knee shows inter condular fracture of left femur, and the X-ray of left leg ie., ankle shows fracture of tibia of left middle 1/3rd. The petitioner is aged about 50 years. Therefore, while taking into consideration the gravity of above injuries, granting further sum of Rs.25,000/- for each injury is just and reasonable which comes to Rs.50,000/-. PW.2 stated that he spent Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and a sum of Rs.5,000/- towards the medical expenditure and Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering are granted. Accordingly, a total sum of Rs.65,000/- is granted. With this modification, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.31,000/- to Rs.65,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation. No costs ______________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 15TH July, 2011 PNV