HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No. 259 of 2008 JUDGMENT: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the petitioner against the order and decree dated 13.08.2007 passed in M.V.O.P.No.101 of 2006 on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Guntur. The brief facts of the case are as follows: On 05.01.2006 at about 9.30 A.M., the petitioner was coming on bye-pass road to go to Mirchi yard along with his rickshaw, on the way at Ramya Cold Storage a lorry Tipper No.AP-7T-2563 came from Vijayawada side in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against his rickshaw. The petitioner sustained several injuries all over the body and fracture to left ribs. Immediately he was shifted to Government General Hospital, Guntur for treatment. A case in Crime No.1 of 2006 was registered by the Police for the said accident. He claimed compensation of Rs.80,000/-. Respondent Nos.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 the driver of lorry Tipper No.AP- 7T-2563? 2. To what compensation the petitioner is entitled, and from whom? 3. To what relief? On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A1 to A.7 and Ex.X.1 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence has been adduced. The counsel appearing for the appellant mainly urged that the Tribunal awarded Rs.20,000/- as against the claim of Rs.80,000/- under all heads which is not sustainable and stressed for enhancement of compensation. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent while supporting the order of the Tribunal below did not dispute the factum of injuries as shown in Ex.A.2 wound certificate. Now, the point for consideration is whether the appellant is entitled for enhancement of compensation? The factum of the accident is not disputed. PW.1 besides examining himself examined PW.2 Dr.J.Rama Krishna, Professor of Cardio Thoracic Surgeon Government General Hospital, Guntur deposed that on 05.01.2006 he examined the injured PW.1 and found the following five injuries: 1. Contusion of 4 x 4 cms on the left frontal parietal area 2. Laceration of 2 x 2 cms below the left eye 3. Laceration of 5 x 1 cms over the left temporal area 4. A red abrasion of 2 cms over the left shoulder 5. Patient complains of pain chest The Doctor certified that injury No.5 is grievous in nature, remaining are simple in nature. Ex.X.1 is the case sheet maintained by Government General Hospital, Guntur. According to him the petitioner sustained 20% permanent and partial disability. The petitioner, being a rickshaw puller, deprived of his regular income due to the grievous injuries sustained by him. In these circumstances, I am of the opinion that granting of Rs.25,000/- for the grievous injury and Rs.5,000/- each for the four simple injuries would be just and reasonable. Thus, in total the compensation awarded under the head ‘pain and suffering’ is Rs.45,000/-. As seen from the impugned order, the Tribunal failed to grant any compensation towards expenditure for treatment. Therefore, an amount of Rs.5,000/- is granted towards ‘expenditure for treatment’. The Tribunal below awarded an amount of Rs.2,000/- towards loss of income and the same is sustainable. In total, the appellant/petitioner is awarded compensation of Rs.52,000/-. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part enhancing the compensation from Rs.20,000/- to Rs.52,000/-. The enhanced amount shall carry interest at the rate of 6% from the date of petition till realisation. __________________ K.S.APPA RAO,J 17TH June, 2011 PNV