IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH:: HYDERABAD THURDAY, THE TWENTY EIGHTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN PRESENT:: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.67 OF 2009 Between: Sultan Amesh Shah …Appellant A n d Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Rep. by its General Manager, Musheerabad and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.67 OF 2009 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the award dated 29-09-2008 in M.V.O.P.No.398 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-XIII-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (for short ‘the Tribunal’), wherein the claim of the appellant herein was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.38,442/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. The appellant herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.3 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 04-09-2005. According to the claimant, on that day he was proceeding on a motorcycle bearing No.AP 12E 3573 from Hyderabad to Mahabubnagar to attend his friend’s marriage and near Jadcherla, an APSRTC bus bearing No. AP 11 Z 3065 came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motorcycle as a result of which the claimant received multiple injuries and he was admitted in Mahabubnagar Area Hospital and after first aid he was shifted to Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. According to him, he was treated as inpatient from 05-09-2005 to 16-09-2005 in connection with treatment for four injuries, which included fracture injuries besides a simple injury. On a complaint given to the police, a case in Cr.No.237 of 2006 was registered against the driver of the bus under Section 338 IPC. 4. The first respondent filed a counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. During enquiry, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and the doctor who treated him was examined as P.W.2 and Exs.A-1 to A-14 were marked. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced by the respondents herein. 6. On a consideration of the material available on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by its driver. The said finding has become final as no appeal is preferred by the APSRTC. The Tribunal further held that the appellant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.38,442/-. Not satisfied with the same, the present appeal is filed by the claimant. 7. The medical evidence on record adduced through P.W.2 the doctor and Exs.A-4 to A-14 established that the appellant sustained four grievous injuries, including fracture injuries and one simple injury and was inpatient for 11 days. Though the appellant-claimant stated that he suffered permanent disability on account of injuries and P.W.2 also deposed that the appellant suffered 40% disability, no disability certificate as such is issued by P.W.2 and filed before the Tribunal. Admittedly, the appellant had rejoined duty and was working as Supervisor in Deccan Cigar Factory and earning Rs.3,500/- per month. The Tribunal, however, awarded Rs.21,500/- towards compensation for permanent disability. As the APSRTC did not prefer any appeal, the amount already awarded by the Tribunal cannot be disturbed. 8. The Tribunal, however, awarded only Rs.7,500/- towards pain and suffering. As per the II Schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant is entitled for Rs.5,000/- for each of the grievous injuries and one simple injury towards pain and suffering, which comes to Rs.21,000/-. The amount of Rs.7,942/- awarded by the Tribunal towards medical expenses as borne out by the medical bills produced and Rs.1,500/- towards loss of earning during 11 days of hospitalization do not call for any interference. Having regard to the fact that the appellant was inpatient in the hospital for 11 days due to fracture injuries and that he underwent two operations for insertion of the rods, the Tribunal ought to have awarded some compensation towards atterndant charges and extra nourishment, having regard to the nature of injuries and also transportation charges as the appellant was shifted from Mahabubnagar to Hyderabad. The appellant is, therefore, entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, Rs.5,000/- towards attendant charges and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges. Thus, the claimant is entitled to a total enhancement of Rs.33,500/- (Rs.13,500/- + Rs.10,000/- + Rs.5,000/- + Rs.5,000/-) with interest on the enhanced amount at 6% per annum from the date of filing of appeal till realization. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is modified accordingly. 9. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed-in-part. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 28th April, 2011 Lrkm.