IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE SIXTEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.28 OF 2008 Between:- Shaik Chand Pasha …Appellant A n d M.Chandrasekhar and another …Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY M.A.C.M.A.No.28 OF 2008 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 22-06-2007 in O.P.No.1258 of 2002, on the file of the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-III- Additional District Judge (FTC), Nizamabad (for short ‘the tribunal’), wherein the claim of appellant was allowed-in-part, awarding compensation of Rs.5,000/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondent. Perused the records. 3. The appellant herein filed the claim application seeking compensation of Rs.2 lakhs on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 12-05-2002. According to the appellant, on that day, he was travelling in an auto bearing No.AP 25 U 735 to Sarangapur and at about 11-00 a.m., when the auto reached near C.W.C godowns, a van bearing No.AP 9 U 7870 came at high speed, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the auto, as a result of which, the appellant- claimant sustained injuries, including two fractures, one on the right leg and the other on the left ankle. A case in Cr.No.97 of 2002 was registered against the driver of the van by Nizamabad Rural Police. It is further pleaded that the claimant took treatment from Dr.T.Narsing Rao, Orthopaedic Surgeon of Government Hospital, Nizamabad. 4. The first respondent remained ex parte. The second respondent filed counter opposing the claim and denying their liability to pay the compensation. 5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the tribunal framed the following issues: i) Whether the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van bearing No.AP 9 U 7870 by its driver? iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled for compensation. If so to what amount and against which of the respondents? iv) To what relief? 6. During enquiry, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and Exs.A-1 to A-4 were marked on behalf of the claimant. No oral evidence was adduced by the insurer, but Ex.B-1 copy of the policy was marked. 7. On a consideration of the evidence available on record, the tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver. The tribunal further held that the claimant is entitled for a total compensation of Rs.5,000/-. Accordingly, an award was passed for the said amount with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition. Not satisfied with the same, the claimant preferred the present appeal, seeking enhancement of compensation. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the amount granted by the tribunal in a sum of Rs.5,000/- is too meagre, having regard to the fact that the claimant sustained two fracture injuries. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, would contend that in the absence of any evidence, justifying enhancement, the award passed by the tribunal does not call for interference. 9. The claimant, as P.W.1, has testified that he sustained multiple injuries, including fracture on the right leg and another fracture on the left ankle. In support of the same, he examined P.W.2 Dr.T.Narsing Rao, the doctor, who examined the claimant and treated him on 12-05-2002 and also filed Ex.A-3- certified copy of medical certificate. As per the medical evidence of P.W.2, coupled with Ex.A-3, the claimant sustained two fracture injuries, one on the right leg and another on the left ankle. The claimant, of course, did not adduce any evidence to show that he was hospitalized for any length of time. He also did not file any medical bills showing the expenses incurred by him in connection with the treatment. However, having regard to the fact that the claimant sustained two fracture injuries, he must have necessarily incurred some expenditure in connection with the treatment and also for extra nourishment. Under those circumstances, it is considered that the amount of Rs.5,000/- awarded by the tribunal is rather meagre, having regard to the fact that the claimant sustained two injuries, one each on both legs. The claimant is, therefore, entitled for a sum of Rs.10,000/- more, which would cover the expenses in connection with the treatment, extra nourishment and attendant charges. The claimant is, therefore, held entitled for a total compensation of Rs.15,000/- with interest @ 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from the date of filing of the appeal. The impugned award is modified accordingly. 10. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed-in-part to the extent stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 16th August, 2010. Lrkm.