HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.506 of 2008 Date: 22-7-2011 Between Balusu Subba Rao … Appellant/Petitioner and Y.Venkata Rao and another … Respondents/ Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.506 of 2008 Judgment: Being aggrieved by the award and decree dated 24-10-2006 in O.P.No.578 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum V Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court), Eluru, West Godavari district the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the appellant-petitioner. 2. The appellant herein is the claimant in O.P.No.578 of 2002 before the tribunal below. The claimant filed the said O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 01-02-2001. The tribunal below, while assessing the evidence on record, awarded compensation of Rs.26,000/- under all heads. Being aggrieved, the present civil miscellaneous appeal is filed by the claimant. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant mainly urged that the tribunal below awarded only meagre compensation of Rs.26,000/- against the claim of Rs.3,00,000/- though there is voluminous evidence placed by the petitioner in the tribunal below and sought for enhancement of compensation. 4. The learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent- Insurance Company while supporting the award of the tribunal below urged that there are no grounds for enhancement of compensation. 5. Now, the point for consideration is -- whether the appellant- claimant is entitled for enhancement of compensation ? 6. Point:- The factum of accident is not disputed. The petitioner filed the O.P., claiming compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in a road traffic accident that occurred on 01-02-2001. In order to prove the accident, the appellant-claimant got examined P.W.1 his wife and filed Exs.A-1 to A-22. Admittedly, P.W.1 is not a direct witness to the accident. P.W.2 is a direst witness to the accident. While taking into consideration the evidence of P.W.2, the tribunal below held that the accident was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle. 7. The injured got examined P.Ws.3 and 4, medical officers. According to the claimant, he sustained fracture of both bones of right fore arm and clinically head injuries signs. Ex.A-2 is the wound certificate issued by P.W.3 Dr. M.V.G.Tilak. P.W.3 also noticed the fracture of shaft of right humorous. P.W.3 further stated that he being a Civil Assistant Surgeon, can appreciate fracture without taking X-rays. He has given emergency treatment to the patient. 8. During the course of cross-examination, P.W.3 deposed that due to the head injury, the patient developed right side henni paresis. As per the handicapped certificate issued by the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada, under Ex.A-19, the injured was brought to the hospital by his son Narasimha Rao, that he was not regained his consciousness by the time he was referred to the Government General Hospital, Vijayawada. 9. P.W.4 is another doctor, by name K.V.V.Satyanarayana Murthy, Civil Assistant Surgeon (Neuro), Government Hospital, Vijayawada. He deposed that on 02-02-2001 he examined the injured and found the following injuries: (1) The head injury CT scan brain showing fracture R.T. frontal bone with pneumocephalus; (2) Contusions right admiral lobe; (3) Infraction in both centrum semi vale and occipital lobs. 10. P.W.4 further deposed that there is also fracture of right humorous and right fore arm. Patient was discharged on 14-02-2001. By the time of discharge, the patient was in semi-consciousness with right hemi plegia. He further deposed that there is a chance of loss of memory. Because of this injury, the patient has to depend on another person throughout his life. He deposed that the injured should continue medicines throughout his lifetime. 11. As seen from the impugned order, the wife of the injured was examined but not the injured. So, it can safely be inferred that the injured was not able to give evidence even at the time of trial. That itself shows the gravity of the injuries sustained by him and about his mental condition. The tribunal below granted only Rs.26,000/- under all heads. In my view, the aforesaid amount is very meagre and disproportionate. 12. As seen from the evidence of P.W.4, as stated above already, the head injury C.T. scan brain showing fracture R.T. frontal bone with pneumocephalus. Therefore, granting of Rs.25,000/- is just and reasonable for the above said injury besides granting another Rs.25,000/- towards the fracture of right humorous and right fore arm. The petitioner also sustained one contusion right admiral lob and infraction in both centrum semi vale and occipital lobs. Therefore, granting another Rs.10,000/- on that score is just and reasonable. In total, an amount of Rs.60,000/- is granted towards compensation for the injuries. 13. For the above injuries received by him, the patient certainly will have pain and suffering, which cannot be compensated in terms of money. However, granting another Rs.15,000/- towards pain and suffering is just and reasonable besides granting Rs.10,000/- towards extra nourishment, another Rs.10,000/- towards medical expenses and Rs.5,000/- towards transportation charges are just and reasonable in the circumstances of the case on hand. Accordingly, an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- is granted towards total compensation to the injured. 14. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed in part enhancing the amount of compensation awarded by the tribunal below from Rs.26,000/- to Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). The enhanced amount of compensation shall carry interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of petition till realization. No costs. ___________________ K.S.APPA RAO, J. 22nd July, 2011. Ak HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.S.APPA RAO M.A.C.M.A.No.506 of 2008 22nd July, 2011. (Ak)