THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY C.M.A.No.3553 of 2003 JUDGMENT: This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Warangal, in O.P.No.1058/2001. The minor petitioner – claimant is the appellant herein. 2. Heard. 3. According to the petitioner, on 25.06.2001 when the petitioner was returning from school near Krusher Mill at Chinthanekkonda village of Warangal District, the jeep bearing No.AP 36 T 6555 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, on account of which, petitioner received multiple injuries and was treated in hospital. She was advised six months OP treatment. She received three fractures of ribs. She spent Rs.75,000/- towards treatment. She claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. First respondent remained exparte and the second respondent filed counter denying the allegations of the petition. On the basis of above pleadings, the following issues were framed: 1. Whether the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the vehicle? 2. Whether the petitioner sustained any injuries and disability and is entitled to claim compensation, if so, to what amount and from whom? 3. To what relief? 4. On behalf of the petitioner, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined, of whom, P.W.1 is the father of the claimant and P.W.2 is the medical officer. Exs.A1 to A9 were marked. On behalf of the respondents, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Judge awarded compensation of Rs.50,000/-. Out of which, Rs.30,000/- towards pain and suffering, Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and attendant charges and Rs.10,000/- towards disability likely to be caused. 5. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the above compensation is totally inadequate as the petitioner suffered three grievous injuries and her right leg was shortened. 6. Though there appears to be no dispute about the petitioner suffering three fractures, there is no authentic evidence with regard to the gravity of the injuries and the consequences of those injuries, as P.W.2 the medical officer who examined the petitioner did not speak anything with regard to the same. However, as the petitioner suffered injury to leg and as well as ankle, which would have caused disability particularly the injury to ankle a movable part of the body, which takes sufficient time for healing and would cause permanent disability, the learned Judge ought to have granted higher compensation. An amount of Rs.30,000/- granted towards pain and suffering is reasonable. As well as Rs.10,000/- awarded towards medical expenses is also reasonable. But, the amount of Rs.10,000/- granted towards disability likely to be caused is inadequate. Under this count, another amount of Rs.40,000/- can be granted. 7. Thus, the compensation awarded by the court below is enhanced from Rs.50,000/- to Rs.90,000/- by awarding another amount of Rs.40,000/- towards inconvenience to multiple fractures. Thus, the petitioner shall be entitled to total compensation of Rs.90,000/-. Interest on the enhanced amount of compensation is at 6% per annum. 8. Accordingly, C.M.A. is partly allowed. No costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J. 18th November 2010, Rns