HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.N.RAO NALLA C.M.A.No.2089 of 2003 JUDGMENT: The petitioner in O.P.No.1016 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum- District Judge, Nalgonda, filed this appeal assailing the orders dated 12.12.2002 of the said Tribunal whereby an amount of Rs.15,000/- was awarded as compensation with interest at 9% per annum. 2. The facts in brief are that on 9.11.1999 while the appellant- petitioner was going on his foot and when he reached Kondamallepally, a scooter bearing registration No.AP-24D-9527 came from behind at high speed handled in a rash and negligent manner by its rider and dashed against him causing multiple injuries. He was treated at Government hospital. P. S. Deverkonda registered a case in crime No.136/99 against the first respondent-scooterist. Hence, the appellant-petitioner filed O.P.No.1016 of 1999 claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation. 3. Respondent No.1 failed to file counter, while respondent No.2- insurance company filed counter denying the petition averments including rash and negligent handling of the scooter by respondent No.1 and its involvement in the accident, injuries sustained by the petitioner, the nature of treatment, the amounts spent and the disability suffered by him. Lastly it is stated that the compensation claimed is excessive. 4. Based on the pleadings of both sides, the lower Tribunal after framing relevant issues as to the rash and negligent handling of the scooter bearing No.AP-24D-9527 and the entitlement of the petitioner to claim compensation and liability of the respondents to pay the same, answered the first issue positively as to negligent handling of the scooter having regard to the evidence of PW.1 and Ex.A.1-FIR in Crime No.136/99 of P.S.Deverkonda. It also held that the petitioner was entitled to claim compensation having regard to evidence of PW.1 coupled with Exs.A.1, A.2, A.3, A.5 and A.6 and fixed joint and several liability on the first and second respondents since Ex.A.3- insurance policy was in force by the date of the accident. 5. The lower Tribunal considering the evidence and other material on record, has awarded a total compensation of Rs.15,000/- under all counts as already stated in Para No.1 supra. 6. It is the case of the appellant-petitioner that though he suffered grievous injury to his left knee and though same is evident from Ex.A.2 medical certificate, the Tribunal failed to consider the same. It is also the case of the appellant-petitioner that though Ex.A.5-bunch of medical bills for Rs.11,907/- was filed, the Tribunal failed to consider the same and did not award any amount. It is also the case of the appellant-petitioner that though he was subjected to pain and suffering having received both injuries in the accident, the Tribunal failed to award any amount towards pain and suffering. It is contended that the lower Tribunal has committed error in awarding lumpsump amount of Rs.15,000/- which is absolutely on the lower side. 7. On the other hand, it is submitted on behalf of the insurance company that since Doctor was not examined to prove Ex.A.2-medical certificate, the lower Tribunal was right in awarding lumpsump compensation of Rs.15,000/-. Moreover, that he was stated to be treated at Government hospital. 8. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this court is of the view that since the appellant-petitioner had suffered grievous injury and simple injury and he is also stated to have been treated for the said injuries, it is deemed appropriate to enhance the total compensation from Rs.15,000/- to Rs.40,000/-, since the lower Tribunal erred in not awarding any amount towards pain and suffering, medical expenses, transport and extra nourishment and incidental charges. 9. Therefore, it is to be held that the appellant-petitioner is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.40,000/- (Rupees Forty Thousand) only i.e. Rs.10,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.11,907/- towards medical expenses, Rs.10,000/- towards transport and extra nourishment and Rs.8,093/- towards incidental charges. However, the interest is reduced to 7.5% per annum from 9% per annum on the enhanced compensation in view of the judgments of the Apex Court in this regard. 10. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. No order as to costs. ​ _______________ B.N.RAO NALLA,J 12-11-2010 Stp