THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3508 OF 2003 and C.M.A.No.3569 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: Since both the appeals arise out of same O.P.672 of 1999 and parties to both appeals are one and the same, both the appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. C.M.A.No.3508 of 2003 is filed by the claimant and C.M.A.No.3569 of 2003 is filed by the 2nd respondent-insurance company against the decree and award dated 23.06.2002 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-Principal District Judge, R.R.District, at L.B. Nagar, Hyderabad, in M.V.O.P.No.672/1999. 3. Heard. 4. It is a case of injuries. The facts are that on 02.03.1999 at about 15.10 hours while the petitioner was proceeding on a scooter bearing No.AP 28 F 9845 from National Dhaba Hotel to Shamirpet village, one Ambassador Car bearing No.AP 9 L 548 going towards Karimnagar side from Hyderabad came in a rash and negligent manner from opposite direction and hit him at Shamirpet village limits, he fell down and received grievous injuries and fracture on the left temporal bone, facture on collar bone etc. and some other injuries all over the body. He was taken to Gandhi Hospital. A case in Cr.No.26 of 1998 under Section 338 IPC was registered and investigated. The petitioner was working as a cook in National Daba Hotel at Shamirpet, earning Rs.2,500/- per month and on account of the accident, he became permanently disabled. First respondent remained ex parte and second respondent filed counter disputing the contents of the petition. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed:- 1. Whether the petitioner injured in accident occurred on 02.03.1999 at 3.10 p.m. on Rajiv Gandhi Rahadari Road, Shamirpet, due to rash and negligent driving of driver of the Ambassador Car bearing No.AP 9 L 548? 2. Whether petitioner suffered any permanent disability in the accident? 3. Whether the crime vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent covering the risk? 4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to any compensation? If so, to what amount and against whom? 5. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, Ex.B1 insurance policy was marked. 5. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.62,500/-. Aggrieved by the above quantum, the present two appeals are filed. 6. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-insurance company is that the compensation awarded is on higher side, whereas the contention of the learned counsel for the claimant is that the compensation awarded is insufficient, as the petitioner suffered serious injuries. 7. Now, the point for consideration is whether there are any grounds for enhancement of compensation? 8. Ex.A3 the injury certificate shows that there were some injuries, which were not clearly legible, but injury No.4 shows that there was bleeding from ear. X.ray of skull was taken. Ex.A5 the discharge summary card from Vijaya Health Care is filed, which shows that the petitioner joined in that hospital at 2.30p.m. on 02.03.1999 and there was fracture of clavical, there was fracture of left temporal bone. According to P.W.1, the injured was first taken to Gandhi Hospital and as his condition was serious, he joined in Vijaya Health Care. 9. The fact that at Gandhi Hospital, it was noted that there was bleeding from the ear and he was recommended for X.ray of skull would show in all probability there might be fracture of skull as referred in Ex.A5 discharge summary issued by Vijaya Health Care. The evidence of P.W.1 further shows that he was in Vijaya Health Care for 11 days, he was bed ridden till June, 2000. He suffered fracture of upper mandible. He spent around Rs.20,000/- for treatment. After the accident, he stopped working as cook. 10. The fact that the petitioner suffered skull fracture perhaps cannot be disputed though Medical Officer is not examined as the initial certificate from Gandhi Hospital says that there was bleeding from his ear and he was sent for X.ray of skull. Unfortunately, the X.ray taken at Gandhi Hospital was not summoned but, there was supporting material like treatment details from Vijaya Health Care, which would show that he suffered fracture of skull. In these circumstances, I am inclined to accept that the petitioner suffered fracture of skull and when he was in private hospital for 11 days, he must have spent reasonable amount for treatment and his claim is that till June 2000 i.e. for four months he was bed ridden, which is also quite possible as the person who suffered fracture of skull, would be obviously bed ridden for reasonable period. 11. Considering all these circumstances, the compensation awarded Rs.62,500/- which is exactly half of the claim is inadequate in my opinion and granting compensation of Rs.1 lakh under all the heads, i.e. towards treatment, pain and suffering, loss of salary for five months, attendance during treatment and permanent disability consequent to the head injury would be reasonable. Accordingly, the compensation is enhanced to Rs.1,00,000/-(Rupees one lakh only) from Rs.62,500/-. The interest shall be at 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount of compensation from the date of petition. 12. Accordingly, C.M.A.No.3508 of 2003 is allowed in part and C.M.A.No.3569 of 2003 is dismissed. No order as to costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 25th June 2010, Rns