THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.1284 OF 2000 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the decree and order, dated 13.01.2000, passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.733/1997. The petitioner in the O.P. is the appellant herein. 2. Heard. 3. The case of the petitioner is that on 26.06.1997 at about 11.45 hours while the petitioner and his brother were proceeding by walk from Public Garden Nampally towards Police Control Room, an auto bearing No.AP 10T 905 came from Nampally side in rash and negligent manner in high speed and dashed the petitioner. The petitionr fell down, suffered grievous injuries. He was shifted to NIMS later to Gandhi Hospital, Secunderabad. The petitioner spent huge amount towards treatment. He was bed ridden for substantial period. He claimed compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-. Respondents 1 and 2 filed separate usual counters denying the petition averments. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident in question took place is due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing No.AP 10T 905, by its driver? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the compensation for the injuries sustained by him? If so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 to 3 were examined and Exs.A1 to A10 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the respondents. 4. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.66,500/-, out of which Rs.1,000/- towards transport to Hospital, Rs.9000/- towards medical expenses, Rs.6,500/- towards pain and suffering on the basis of bills, Rs.35,000/- towards continuing permanent disability and Rs.15,000/- towards loss of earnings. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimant. 5. Now, the point for consideration is where there are any valid grounds for enhancing the compensation and for allowing the appeal? 6. Now, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant- claimant is that the compensation awarded by the Court below is inadequate and nothing is granted towards extra nourishment and the amount of Rs.35,000/- granted towards permanent disability is inadequate, and that the amount of Rs.15,000/- granted towards loss of income is also inadequate. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was bedridden for one year on account of which he could not attend the office. But, there is no authentic material to prove the said fact. 8. Considering these circumstances, the petitioner can be granted an amount of Rs.5,000/- towards extra nourishment including charges for attendant etc. during the period of treatment and another Rs.10,000/- can be granted towards permanent disability for which he was granted Rs.35,000/- as the petitioner was hospitalized for substantial period, the injury must have been some what serious in nature. Thus, the compensation is enhanced by another sum of Rs.15,000/- and the total compensation shall be Rs.81,500/-(Rupees eighty one thousand and five hundred only) instead of Rs.66,500/- granted by the Court below. The enhanced amount shall bear interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of payment. 9. Accordingly, the C.M.A. is partly allowed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 5th July 2010, Rns